Posts Tagged ‘article processing charge’

Open Access journal publishing debates – the elephant in the room?

Sunday, November 4th, 2018

For perhaps ten years now, the future of scientific publishing has been hotly debated. The traditional models are often thought to be badly broken, although convergence to a consensus of what a better model should be is not apparently close. But to my mind, much of this debate seems to miss one important point, how to publish data.

Thus, at one extreme is COAlition S, a model which promotes the key principle that “after 1 January 2020 scientific publications on the results from research funded by public grants provided by national and European research councils and funding bodies, must be published in compliant Open Access Journals or on compliant Open Access Platforms.” This includes ten principles, one of which “The ‘hybrid’ model of publishing is not compliant with the above principles” has revealed some strong dissent, as seen at forbetterscience.com/2018/09/11/response-to-plan-s-from-academic-researchers-unethical-too-risky I should explain that hybrid journals are those where the business model includes both institutional closed-access to the journal via a subscription charge paid by the library, coupled with the option for individual authors to purchase an Open Access release of an article so that it sits outside the subscription. The dissenters argue that non-OA and hybrid journals include many traditional ones, which especially in chemistry are regarded as those with the best impact factors and very much as the journals to publish in to maximise both the readership, hence the impact of the research and thus researcher’s career prospects. Thus many (not all) of the American Chemical Society (ACS) and Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC) journals currently fall into this category, as well as commercial publishers of journals such as Nature, Nature Chemistry,Science, Angew. Chemie, etc. 

So the debate is whether funded top ranking research in chemistry should in future always appear in non-hybrid OA journals (where the cost of publication is borne by article processing charges, or APCs) or in traditional subscription journals where the costs are borne by those institutions that can afford the subscription charges, but of course also limit the access.  A measure of how important and topical the debate is that there is even now a movie devoted to the topic which makes the point of how profitable commercial scientific publishing now is and hence how much resource is being diverted into these profit margins at the expense of funding basic science.

None of these debates however really takes a close look at the nature of the modern research paper. In chemistry at least, the evolution of such articles in the last 20 years (~ corresponding to the online era) has meant that whilst the size of the average article has remained static at around 10 “pages” (in quotes because of course the “page” is one of those legacy concepts related to print), another much newer component known as “Supporting information” or SI♥ has ballooned to absurd sizes. It can reach 1000 pages[1] and there are rumours of even larger SIs. The content of SI is of course mostly data. The size is often because the data is present in visual form (think spectra). As visual information, it is not easily “inter-operable” or “accessible”. Nor is it “findable” until commercial abstracting agencies chose to index it. Searches of such indexed data are most certainly “closed” (again depending on institutional purchases of access) and not “open access”. You may recognise these attributes as those of FAIR (Findable, accessible, inter-operable and re-usable). So even if an article in chemistry is published in pure OA form, in order to get FAIR access to the data associated with the article, you will probably have to go to a non-OA resource run by a commercial organisation for profit. Thus a 10 page article might itself be OA, but the full potential of its 1000+ page data (an elephant if ever there was one) ends up being very much not OA.

You might argue that the 1000+ pages of data does not require the services of an abstracting agency to be useful. Surely a human can get all the information they want from inspecting a visual spectrum? Here I raise the future prospects of AI (artificial intelligence). The ~1000 page SI I noted above[1] includes e.g NMR spectra for around 70 compounds (I tried to count them all visually, but could not be certain I found them all). A machine, trained to identify spectra from associated metadata (a feature of FAIR), could extract vastly more information than a human could from FAIR raw data‡ (a spectrum is already processed data, with implied information/data loss) in a given time. And for many articles, not just one. Thus FAIR data is very much targeted not only at humans but at the AI-trained machines of the future.

So I again repeat my assertion that focussing on whether an article is OA or not and whether publishing in hybrid journals is to be allowed or not by funders is missing that 100-fold bigger elephant in the room. For me, a publishing model that is fit for the future should include as a top priority a declaration of whether the data associated with it is FAIR. Thus in the Plan-S ten principles, FAIR is not mentioned at all. Only when FAIR-enabled data becomes part of the debates can we truly say that the article and its data are on its way to being properly open access.

‡The FAIR concept did not originally differentiate between processed data (i.e. spectra) and the underlying primary or raw data on which the processed data is based. Our own implementation of FAIR data includes both types of data; raw for machine reprocessing if required, and processed data for human interpretation. Along with a rich set of metadata, itself often created using carefully designed workflows conducted by machines.

♥The proportion of articles relating to chemistry which do not include some form of SI is probably low. These would include articles which simply provide a new model or interpretation of previously published data, reporting no new data of their own. A famous historical example is Michael Dewar’s re-interpretation of the structure of stipitatic acid[2] which founded the new area of non-benzenoid aromaticity.

References

  1. J.M. Lopchuk, K. Fjelbye, Y. Kawamata, L.R. Malins, C. Pan, R. Gianatassio, J. Wang, L. Prieto, J. Bradow, T.A. Brandt, M.R. Collins, J. Elleraas, J. Ewanicki, W. Farrell, O.O. Fadeyi, G.M. Gallego, J.J. Mousseau, R. Oliver, N.W. Sach, J.K. Smith, J.E. Spangler, H. Zhu, J. Zhu, and P.S. Baran, "Strain-Release Heteroatom Functionalization: Development, Scope, and Stereospecificity", Journal of the American Chemical Society, vol. 139, pp. 3209-3226, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1021/jacs.6b13229
  2. M.J.S. DEWAR, "Structure of Stipitatic Acid", Nature, vol. 155, pp. 50-51, 1945. https://doi.org/10.1038/155050b0

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Chemical IT | 2 Comments »

First, Open Access, then Open (and FAIR) Data, now Open Citations.

Saturday, February 3rd, 2018

The topic of open citations was presented at the PIDapalooza conference and represents a third component in the increasing corpus of open scientific information.

David Shotton gave us an update on  Citations as First Class data objects – Citation Identifiers and introduced (me) to the blog where he discusses this topic. The citations or bibliography has long been regarded as an essential, and until recently inseparable, component at the end of a scientific article. It is also a component easily susceptible to “game play“. Authors can be tempted to self-cite themselves, possibly to excess and perhaps worse, to cite their friends and colleagues for other than purely scientific reasons. There are other issues. Thus to infer the context of any particular citation, one has to read the text where it is cited and this too can be subjected to game play. One may have to “read between the lines” to try to judge whether the citation is being cited favourably as supporting any case being made, or instead to indicate disagreement with the cited authors. An article that is being cited because one disagrees with the conclusions therein may still go on to contribute to the cited author’s “h-index” of esteem. So there are various aspects of citations that deserve improvement, or certainly development and evolution.

Shotton told us that many publishers are now releasing article citations as open (CC0) data in their own right, as urged to do so on the Initiative for Open Citations site. A corpus of some 13 million of these are now available  as RDF triples with a SPARQL end-point. This latter means that semantic searches of the corpus can be undertaken. So what are the benefits? Worthy aspirations such as to explore connections between knowledge fields, and to follow the evolution of ideas and scholarly disciplines (similar in fact to the new Dimensions product I discussed in the previous post). When I probed into the various sites linked above, I had in mind to identify some clear scientific outcomes of making them available in this manner, perchance even in the field of chemistry. When I succeed I will follow-up on this post, but at the moment I am not yet in a position to illustrate these benefits with chemical stories. If anyone reading this post has such, please let us know! 

I will conclude here by noting much discussion at universities of the future of the scientific article itself; whether it should be increasingly mandated as GOLD Open Access (made so by payment of an article processing charge, or APC, by its authors), or whether journals should retain the hybrid publishing models where only a proportion of articles are GOLD, and the remainder are paid for by subscription fees for licensing access to the non-GOLD articles in the journal. Meanwhile, in what seems sometimes as a separate conversation, the article itself is being dis-assembled into components such as open and/or FAIR data, open citations, infographics, social media and yes, even blogs. Are these two evolutions headed in different directions? Certainly, I think the future is not what it used to be!

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Chemical IT | 2 Comments »

Two stories about Open Peer Review (OPR), the next stage in Open Access (OA).

Thursday, October 5th, 2017

We have heard a lot about OA or Open Access (of journal articles) in the last five years, often in association with the APC (Article Processing Charge) model of funding such OA availability. Rather less discussed is how the model of the peer review of these articles might also evolve into an Open environment. Here I muse about two experiences I had recently.

Organising the peer review of journal articles is often now seen as the single most important activity a journal publisher can undertake on behalf of the scientific community; the very reputation of the journal depends on this process being conducted responsibly, thoroughly and with integrity by the selected reviewers. Reviewers conduct this process voluntarily, mostly anonymously, without remuneration or recognition and often with short deadlines for completion. After one such process, I recently received an interesting follow-up email from the journal, suggesting I register my activity with Publons.com, a site set up to register and give non-anonymous credit for reviewing activities. I should say that Publons is a commercial company, set up in 2012 to to “address the static state of peer-reviewing practices in scholarly communication, with a view to encourage collaboration and speed up scientific development”. Worthy aims, but like many a .com company nowadays, one might ask what the back-story might be. Thus many of the Internet giants, Google, Facebook, Twitter etc, do have back-stories, which often underpin their business models, but which may only emerge years after their founding. With only a hazy idea of what Publons’ back-story might be, I went ahead and registered my reviewing activity.

After doing so, I then accessed my entry. You only learn that I have reviewed for a particular journal, but nothing about the actual process itself. I did not really think that this experiment had done much to encourage collaboration and speed up scientific development. It might be useful for early career researchers to get their name exposed however.

I can almost understand why the review itself might not be publicly displayed, but as a result you learn nothing about the factual basis of the review and whether it might have been conducted responsibly, thoroughly and with integrity. Instead, I now suspect that the presence of my name on this site might merely encourage other publishers to deluge me with requests for further (freely donated) refereeing.

Discussing this at lunch, a colleague (thanks Ed!) reminded me of a veritable journal called Organic Syntheses. Here, authors submit a synthetic procedure and open identified “checkers” are invited to repeat the procedure and comment on it. The two roles are kept separate (i.e. the checkers do not become co-authors), but they could get credit for their activity. Thus if you view a typical recent entry[1] you will see a full biography and affiliation of the checkers given at the end, with footnotes often describing their own observations if they differ from those of the authors. 

This set me thinking whether an open peer review process might also contain such an element of checking, as well as informed comment, nay opinion, about the article itself and the conclusions it makes. The opportunity arose when I was contacted by an author who was about to submit a computational article to a journal. This journal allowed open peer review. If I agreed to review, my name would be attached to the article if accepted for publication. I undertook this on the basis that I would use this review to conduct some limited checking of the computations and other assumptions underpinning the conclusions in the submitted article. I also wanted this open process to include the data on which my review was based. Most importantly if anyone wished to replicate my replication, the barriers to doing so should be as low as is possible. Shortly thereafter, I received a formal invitation from the journal and I set about my task. Crucially, all my own calculations supporting the review were archived in a data repository, albeit under embargo. In my cover letter I included the DOI for my data and the embargo access code, so that the authors (and the editor of the journal if they so wished) could inspect the data against which I wrote my review.

Then followed standard procedures, whereby the authors took my comments into consideration, revised the article and the final version was indeed accepted and published.[2] You will find the two referees/checkers listed, although unlike Organic Syntheses,  there is no bibliographic information about them or their affiliation. I did ask the journal if they could at least link my ORCID identifier to my name, but that request was refused. If my name had been a common one, then disambiguating it into a unique identity could be a challenge. There was also no mechanism to associate my identity on the journal with any data on which I had based my review. Really, the only open aspect of this process was just my (potentially ambiguous) name, nothing else. No follow-up was received from the journal to add the review to Publons. 

The next stage was to contact the author who had originally set the process under way to ask them if they would mind my releasing the data on which my review had been based. They agreed, as also they did to my telling this story. The overall outcome is thus a published article with the reviewers (if not their reviews or any supporting evidence for their review) openly named. In this specific case, there is also an open dataset with a formal link back to the article in the form of a DOI (10.14469/hpc/2640, although I suspect this aspect is unique, even precedent setting), but one driven by the reviewer and not the journal. It would be nice to have bidirectional links between both article and the review data, but I do not know any publishers currently operating such a mechanism (if anyone knows such, please tell).

Now to the broader questions about the process described above. I think that the aspiration to encourage collaboration and speed up scientific development may indeed have been promoted by this association between article and the data assembled by the reviewer. Whether the final article was improved as a result of the processes described here I will leave the authors to comment if they wish. As with the checkers employed by Organic Syntheses, such a review process takes not just time, but resources. Resources that currently have to be freely donated by the reviewers and their host institution and which clearly cannot become expensive, time-consuming or onerous. That was not the case as it happens here; my contributions were facilitated by my having sufficient expertise to perform the tasks I undertook really quite quickly.

I will raise one more issue; that of whether to add my review to the dataset which is now openly available. In fact it is not included, in part because it related to the initially submitted version of the MS. The final MS version has been revised and so many of the comments in my review may only make sense if you have the first version to hand. It would be perhaps unreasonable to make the first drafts of manuscripts routinely available (although historians of science would probably love that!) alongside the reviews of that first draft. But I could also see a case for doing so if the community agreed to it. One to discuss for the future I think. There is also the associated issue of what should happen to any dataset associated with a review in the event that the final article is rejected and not accepted. Should the data remain permanently under embargo and the reviewer’s identity permanently anonymous? Perhaps opening up even such datasets might nevertheless  encourage collaboration and speed up scientific development, but I fancy some would consider that a step too far!

References

  1. J. Zhu, "Preparation of N-Trifluoromethylthiosaccharin: A Shelf-Stable Electrophilic Reagent for Trifluoromethylthiolation", Organic Syntheses, vol. 94, pp. 217-233, 2017. https://doi.org/10.15227/orgsyn.094.0217
  2. L. Li, M. Lei, Y. Xie, H.F. Schaefer, B. Chen, and R. Hoffmann, "Stabilizing a different cyclooctatetraene stereoisomer", Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, vol. 114, pp. 9803-9808, 2017. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1709586114

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Chemical IT, General | 5 Comments »

Chemistry preprint servers (revisited).

Tuesday, August 16th, 2016

This week the ACS announced its intention to establish a “ChemRxiv preprint server to promote early research sharing“. This was first tried quite a few years ago, following the example of especially the physicists. As I recollect the experiment lasted about a year, attracted few submissions and even fewer of high quality. Will the concept succeed this time, in particular as promoted by a commercial publisher rather than a community of scientists (as was the original physicists model)?

The RSC (itself a highly successful commercial publisher) has picked up on this and run its own commentary. You will find quotes from yours truly there, along with Peter Murray-Rust, a long time ardent promoter of community driven open science. One interesting aspect is that the ACS runs around 50 journals, and the decision on whether each will accept preprints for publication will (shortly = next few weeks) be made by the individual editors. I wonder if the eventual list of those supporting the project will bring any surprises (bets on J. Am. Chem. Soc. preprints anyone)?

But I want to pick up on the declared aspiration “to promote early research sharing“. Here I couple research sharing with data sharing. If you share your research, you should also share the data resulting from that research. We are now entering a new era of data sharing (in part as a result of mandation by various funding bodies) and so one has to ask whether a pre-print server will encourage people to create and share FAIR data (data which is findable, accessible, inter-operable and re-usable) as a model to replace the current one of “supporting information” held in enormous PDF files (mostly unFAIR on at least three counts). This question is indeed posed in the RSC commentary. What I would like to see happen are projects such as that described here, which create what were described as “first class research objects”, and which I think amply fulfil the criteria of being FAIR. So, will ChemRxiv preprint servers help promote such FAIR data sharing as part of early research sharing? We will find out soon.

The ACS supports OA (Open Access) sharing of articles, provided the authors pay (or arrange payment of) the appropriate APC or article processing charge. These charges are complex, being subject to various discounts (for example if you as an author are an ACS member or not) but are generally not insignificant (> $1000). I wondered whether preprints might be subject to an APC, and so I asked the ACS. The response was “we don’t anticipate any submission or usages fees at this time“. I think that means free at point of submission, and free at point of readership “at this time“.

Finally, let me now summarise as I understand the current family of “research publications”:

  1. The preprint
  2. The final author version as submitted to a journal
  3. The “version of record” (VoR) as published by the journal
  4. Any FAIR published data associated with the article

All four of these are attempts at “research sharing”. Each may be located in a different location, and each may have its own DOI. And of course we cannot easily know how much overlap there is between each of them. Thus, how might 1-3 differ in terms of the story or “narrative” of scientific claims? Does 4 agree or support 1-3? Does 4 agree with perhaps data subsets contained in 1-3? If keeping abreast of the current research literature is a challenge, imagine having to cope with/reconcile up to four versions of each “publication”! 

Lots of food for thought here. We have not heard the last of these themes. 

 

Tags:, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
Posted in Chemical IT | 1 Comment »