SCIENCE DITOR E A Publication of the Council of Science Editors In this issue • Perspectives on Open Access • More 2012 Annual Meeting Reports • 2013 Annual Meeting Program and Short Course Previews

JANUARY – MARCH 2013 • VOLUME 36 • NUMBER 1

VIEWPOINT SCIENCE 2 Perspectives on Open Access. PATRICIA K BASKIN EDITOR ARTICLES 3 Open Access Demystified: Flavors, Colors, and Practices in Today’s Scholarly Publishing Marketplace. MORNA CONWAY JANUARY – MARCH 2013 5 Open Acess: Scholarly Publishers Can Take the Lead. DAVID CROTTY VOLUME 36 • NUMBER 1 8 Embracing Open Access. JOYCE-RACHEL JOHN 9 PLOS and the Surge in Global Momentum for Open Access. KRISTEN RATAN Science Editor (ISSN 1535-5365) is published quar- terly by the Council of Science Editors Inc, 10200 11 An Open-Access Future: Challenges and Opportunities for the Humanities and Social W 44th Street, Suite 304, Wheat Ridge, CO Sciences. WILL SCHWEITZER and CHARLES B CHOE 80033, and serves as a forum for the exchange of 13 The American Physical Society’s Experiences in Open-Access Publishing. ideas among professionals concerned with publish- DANIEL T KULP ing in the sciences. We encourage contributions of articles on peer-review research, editorial processes, 14 Evolving Access: Genetics Society of America Journals GENETICS and G3: ethics, and other items of special interest to our Genes|Genomes|Genetics. TRACEY DEPELLEGRIN readers. For more details about submission, see our 16 One Society’s Perspective on Open-Access Publishing. HEATHER GOODELL Information for Contributors page at www.council- 17 PeerJ Heralds in a New Era of Innovation and Affordability in Academic Publishing. scienceeditors.org/i4a/pages/index.cfm?pageID=3369. PETER BINFIELD Copyright © 2013 by the Council of Science 18 Predatory Publishers Threaten to Erode Scholarly Communication. JEFFREY BEALL Editors Inc. Bulk mail postage paid at Lawrence, 20 Reshaping Scholarly Communication: Why Faculty are Adopting Institutional KS. For information about CSE, including Open-Access Policies. RICHARD A SCHNEIDER membership and publications, visit our Web site at www.CouncilScienceEditors.org or contact Executive Director David L Stumph at (720) 881-6046; e-mail [email protected]. ANNUAL MEETING REPORTS Membership dues, including subscription to Science 22 Current State of Peer Review Editor, are US $179 per year. 23 Did You Know? Government Issues That Affect Publishing Access to the full text of the most recent issues 24 Libraries and Librarians: A Changing Landscape of Science Editor is available only to CSE mem- 25 Helping Novice and International Authors to Publish bers. Articles older than 1 year are open access. 26 Journals Production: Workflow, Efficiency, and Metrics Membership dues for CSE include a yearly 27 Remote Office: Experiments in Working Offsite subscription to Science Editor. Copies of articles are available at Copyright Clearance Center 28 CSE–COPE Joint Session: Learning to Do the Right Thing—Educating Editors, (www.copyright.com). Authors, and Reviewers in Publication Ethics

Opinions expressed by authors contributing to this publication are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions or policies of the FEATURES Council of Science Editors Inc or the Editorial 29 Correcting the Literature: Committee on Publication Ethics Seminar Highlights. Board of Science Editor. Science Editor will not MAY PIOTROWSKI knowingly accept advertisements that are decep- tive, misleading, or expressly incompatible with our mission and goals. Science Editor does not endorse, advocate, or guarantee any offer, view- DEPARTMENTS point, or representation made by advertisers in Science Editor. 31 Member Profile. STACY CHRISTIANSEN 32 Marginalia. BARBARA MEYERS FORD Send ADDRESS CHANGES to CSE, 10200 W 44th Avenue, Suite 304, Wheat Ridge, CO 80033; e-mail: [email protected]. CSE NEWS 33 The CSE Short Courses: A Great Reason to Arrive Early in Montreal 34 “Communicate Science Effectively: The World Depends on It!”—Making It Happen at the 2013 Annual Meeting in Montreal 36 Calendar 36 Information for Contributors

www.CouncilScienceEditors.org Science Editor Online

Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 • 1 Viewpoint Perspectives on Open Access

The recently completed Finch report and the momentum behind OA publishing (see the mandate from the Research Councils article by Kristin Ratan). Will Schweitzer UK (RCUK) requiring published papers and Charles Choe define the challenges that it has funded be made publicly and opportunities for SAGE Publications available were the provocation behind in OA publishing in the humanities and choosing open access (OA) as the topic social sciences, as does Dan Kulp for the of the current issue of Science Editor. field of physics. Two examples of forays into The mandate is effective for articles OA publishing by societies are presented submitted to journals beginning 1 April by Tracey Depelegrin, of the Genetics 2013, so I expect expanding access to Society of America, and Heather Goodell, scientific publications will generate a of the American Heart Association. good deal of conversation this spring. It To round out the OA discussions, Jeffrey seems that new OA journals are being Beall discusses the publishing effects of Patricia K Baskin launched daily by both new and tradi- predatory publishers (those taking advan- Editor-in-Chief, Science Editor tional publishers. This issue’s lead-off tage of funder fees to profit from publishing article by Morna Conway defines the low-quality, often non–peer-reviewed arti- our cover suggests, the 2013 CSE annual various models of OA today, and David cles), and Richard Schneider discusses the meeting, to be held in Montreal, is rapidly Crotty describes the status of the intia- implementation of OA by the University approaching. Articles by Nancy Devaux, tives under way in the UK. of California, San Francisco and other coordinator of the CSE short courses, and The perspectives on OA provided in this institutions. Finally, we present a mem- Michael Friedman and Tony Alves, CSE issue include those from a member of the ber profile of a passionate OA advocate, Program Committee cochairs, describe the traditional publishing community (Joyce Jocalyn Clark, of PLOS Medicine. short courses to be held on 3–4 May and Rachel-John, of BMJ) and from PLOS, 10 We also bring you the final reports from the general sessions to be held on 5–6 May. years strong and instrumental in creating the 2012 meetings held in Seattle. And, as Don’t forget to register!

EDITOR-IN-CHIEF Patricia K Baskin EDITORIAL BOARD MEMBERS Tracey Depellegrin MANUSCRIPT EDITOR Norman Grossblatt Cheryl Iverson Sunil Moreker Section Editors Antonija Paic´ ANNUAL MEETING REPORTS Dana Compton Hythm Shibl ETHICAL EDITOR Kristi Overgaard Diane Sullenberger MARGINALIA Barbara Meyers Ford Anne Marie Weber-Main MEMBER PROFILES Stacy Christiansen Victoria Wong SOLUTION CORNER Kenneth F Heideman TECHNOLOGY/E-PUBLISHING Anna Jester BOARD OF DIRECTORS TERMINOLOGY IN SCIENCE Lindsey Buscher President Kenneth F Heideman PUBLICATION MANAGERS Leslie E Neistadt President Elect Heather Goodell Caroline M Simpson Vice President Tim Cross Dana Compton Past President Diane Sullenberger QUALITY CONTROL Roxanne K Young INDEXER Winfield Swanson Secretary Pamella Erickson BOARD LIAISON Tim Cross Treasurer Michael Clarke ADVISER Barbara Gastel Treasurer Elect May Piotrowski COMPOSITION SERVICES Aptara, Inc Directors Angela Cochran PRINTING AND BINDING Allen Press, Inc Jennifer Fleet MANUSCRIPT TRACKING Aries Systems, Inc Anna Trudgett

2 • Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 Article Open Access Demystified: Flavors, Colors, and Practices in Today’s Scholarly Publishing Marketplace

Morna Conway Finally, the growth of scientific research has invested time and resources in peer output itself, particularly in Asia and review. Open access (OA) is a term that—despite South America, is driving demand for careful definition, intense discussion, and more publication outlets. As the estab- The growth of OA has surprised many inherent significance for the scholarly pub- lished literature (largely subscription- in the publishing industry. Although lishing world—continues to be misused based journals) vies for position, largely “freeing science”, to use the term coined and misinterpreted. During the course of on the basis of impact factors, editors are by Spencer Reiss in his MIT Technology one recent meeting of the publications increasingly selective about what they Review article,1 is a worthy ideal, some committee of a highly respected medical publish in their journals. Many editors abiding concerns about how science group, I heard OA referred to as “van- now deliberately keep their acceptance should be set free need to be addressed ity publishing”, used interchangeably with rate low to support a small denominator in by the editorial community, inasmuch as “online-only” journals, and accused of the calculation of the average number of editors are the arbiters of soundness and being represented by no journal with “an citations (the impact factor). quality in science. impact factor greater than 2”! I imagine In this environment, it is not surprising There are a few concerns: that my colleagues in CSE are a great deal that OA has grown into an important part more au courant than that group of doctors, of the scientific journal scene. Surprisingly, 1. Is quality control in science scalable? In but it does seem that OA has had its share funding for authors appears to be available, other words, with the increase in output of misconception. This article attempts to either tacitly from their grants or as part of and the continued drive to publish, are clarify the types of access that journals offer their institutions’ or funders’ commitment resources available to provide critical and the current status of OA journals. to making science as universally accessible peer review and, for accepted articles, The impetus for the OA movement as possible. The following are indicators stringent copyediting? was the idea that the results of research that OA is not only here to stay but on the 2. Does bringing money into the supply funded by taxpayers should be free to tax- rise (in this context, we are talking about side of journals (the authors) influence payers, but the movement struck a chord gold OA): editorial and publishing decision mak- with institutions as a way of combating ing? It is a different dynamic when, for their perennial budget constraints. The • The Directory of Open Access Journals success, a journal must attain 500 sub- recession of 2009–2010 fueled an institu- (DOAJ), maintained by Lund University scribers (through marketing, “big deal” tional desire for alternatives to subscrip- in Sweden, lists more than 8,000 OA bundles, and so on) compared with the tion-based journals. Authors themselves journals and adds new titles daily. 100 articles that it must publish to be at have been under pressure or constraint by • PLOS ONE published more than 14,000 break-even. their funders to make the results of their articles last year alone. 3. Is there enough money in the academic funded research permanently and freely • Major STM publishers, such as Elsevier system to support both subscription available to the public. Such funders as and Wiley, are launching new OA jour- journals and faculty output? the Wellcome Trust, the Howard Hughes nals. (Springer has been in this field for 4. Is the proliferation of new journals— Medical Institute, and the Max Planck several years through BioMed Central it seems that there is at least one OA Society not only insist that authors whose and Springer OPEN.) journal for every “traditional” journal— research they fund publish in OA journals • Many societies are launching OA jour- providing a real service to the users but have established a new, broad-based, nals as companions to their flagships, of science, that is, the public and the gold OA journal, eLIFE, which is com- part of the rationale being that, as professionals? pletely free to authors “at least for an rejection rates rise, disaffected authors initial period”, according to the Web site. submit their good, sound papers to There is already evidence that some competing journals, which results in OA journals are not going to survive— MORNA CONWAY is president of Morna added citations to the impact factors of they have no submissions and will die on Conway, Inc., Shelbyville, Tennessee. competitors, after the original journal the vine. There is also evidence that some

Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 • 3 Article continued

Table 1. Access to STM Journals

Type of Access Characteristics Free by selection of • Editor (or publisher) selects articles and makes them free, that is, outside the access-control firewall. editor or publisher Typically, such articles are of broad interest or have public-health impact (for example, concerning H1N1 a couple of years ago) and are featured on the journal’s homepage or on the society’s Web site. • Often, free selected articles are accompanied by a commentary or editorial explaining their significance. • Sometimes, such articles are made free because there is media activity (press release by publisher or author’s institution). • Sometimes, the articles are free only for a limited period, such as 4–6 weeks, and then go back behind access control. Free by virtue of • All articles in a journal are free because the journal is supported by advertising revenues (in print or online, commercial support “controlled” or “free” circulation). of journal • Such articles might not be peer reviewed, and the typical controlled-circulation journal has no impact factor and is not indexed in MEDLINE. • Such journals may use “gated access” to put a barrier in place for the reader who is not registered (or not a member of the sponsoring association) as a means to protect the commercial opportunity associated with the journal. Open—gold • Gold OA means that the article is universally and permanently outside access control, and costs of publication (journals) are paid by the author’s institution, funding agency, grant, or, in rare cases, the author. Gold OA is the gold standard for OA. High-profile gold OA journals include the Public Library of Science (PLOS) journals (such as PLOS Medicine and PLOS ONE) and BioMed Central’s 250+ journals. • Gold journals charge a wide range of article-publishing fees, from $750 (which may include a discount for authors who are members of a sponsoring society or institution) to $5,000. • Some journals, supported by foundations or other groups, charge no article-publishing fees; they are free to all—readers, authors, and institutions. Open—gold • Gold OA can apply within a subscription-based journal. Many established journals that rely on their insti- (articles): the hybrid tutional and consortium subscription bases for revenue accommodate author needs for immediate and uni- journal model versal OA through a system of paid article-publishing fees, typically $3,000–3,500 per article. Such articles are placed outside access control, which means that anyone—institutions, consortia, members of a society, personal subscribers—can have access from day 1. Open—green • Green OA means that the author self-archives a version of the accepted paper in a publicly accessible reposi- (articles) tory, such as PubMed Central, or in an institutional repository (managed by the author’s academic or research institution). • Self-archiving a version, typically the final accepted manuscript before copyediting (one “value-add” of pub- lishing), allows authors to comply with funder mandates. • Most of the large publishers facilitate deposit of author papers into public repositories as a service and to ensure that the correct version is used. Delayed OA • Many scientific and medical journals, particularly ones that self-publish or that are owned by societies, have journals adopted policies of making all content free after an embargo date (e.g., 6 months, 12 months, 24 months, 12 months being the most common). Their publishers have analyzed subscription-renewal rates and have deter- mined that there is no adverse effect on their revenues if they free up content after a year or so. Note that in the slower-moving disciplines, a year’s delay could put subscription revenue at risk.

OA journals, such as the PLOS journals, when they attract and publish the best Reference are strong. I suspect that in another decade papers, and the pecking order of journals 1. Reiss, S. Science wants to be free: the argument or so, there will be a familiar landscape in will continue to drive author decisions on for open access journals. MIT Technology Review. scientific publishing: journals—whether where to submit and editorial decisions http://www.technologyreview.com/article/404007/ OA or under access control—will thrive on what to publish. science-wants-to-be-free/.

4 • Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 Article Open Access: Scholarly Publishers Can Take the Lead

David Crotty More and more, researchers are forced to now experiences. The report estimates focus relentlessly on the few things that that the transition period to OA will be The last decade has seen enormous move- bring in funding and provide concrete long and cost the UK alone an additional ment toward broadening access to scholarly career advancement. Everything else, even £50–60 million per year, and that to literature. The number of articles published things that are seen as beneficial, falls by make the transition all interested par- in an open-access (OA) manner continues the wayside. ties need to work together in a managed to climb rapidly, as does the number of OA Public and private funding agencies see process. journals. Despite the growth and a near OA as an important means of maximizing The Finch report posits “gold OA” as constant level of discussion and debate in society’s return on investments in research. the way research should be published and the publishing industry, OA still has low Funders are slowly recognizing the insti- made publicly accessible. There seems to priority for most researchers. Governments tutionalized inertia and lack of motiva- be a high level of confusion over the terms and funding agencies are working to coun- tion toward progress and are beginning to gold and green OA. To pare them down ter the lack of uptake in the community by implement new policies and enforcement to simple definitions, gold OA involves changing tactics, philosophically moving regimes to drive academe to better serve publishing through formal journals, and from the carrot to the stick. their purposes. green OA involves using repositories and Study after study shows that researchers self-archiving to achieve OA. There are place low priority on OA when choosing The Finch Report multiple variations in each route; the two an outlet for their work. Participants in In June 2012, a UK government-com- routes are not incompatible and can occur Ithaka’s most recent faculty survey1 put missioned report, “Accessibility, sustain- together or separately. journal OA policies as the least important ability, excellence: how to expand access The report suggests that papers be pub- determining factor in choosing a venue for to research publications”4, known as the lished through journals and made publicly submission. Only 10% of respondents in Finch report, was released. available through the payment of article- the Research Information Network’s study The group that wrote the report was processing charges (APCs). Funding must on communicating knowledge2 felt that made up of representatives of funding agen- be provided for APCs, and the fewer OA repositories were important dissemi- cies, libraries, academe, and publishing. restrictions on use and reuse of published nation channels for their work. Even the The report is an incisive and fair document articles, the better. Study of Open Access Publishing (SOAP) but in some ways a frustrating one. It does The authors offer strong cautions to survey3, most of whose participants were a nice job of making clear the concerns funders in setting licensing terms and in actively publishing OA articles, ranked and issues for each set of stakeholders setting policies, stating that great care OA as only the 10th-most important fac- involved and does not sugarcoat a complex should be taken in determining embargo tor in selecting an outlet for publication. situation. It is somewhat lacking, though, periods for green OA: “We believe that When depositing research papers funded in that it mostly discusses goals and road- it would be unreasonable to require that by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) blocks but offers little in the way of solu- embargo periods are shorter than twelve in PubMed Central (PMC) was voluntary, tions. For example, the report goes into months. . . . Moreover, in subject areas rather than required, compliance peaked great depth about how important research where the half-life of the articles in each at 3.8%. societies are and how OA models threaten issue of a journal is several years, there may Those data points should not be taken as their continued existence, but it does not be a case for a longer period”. indicative of a lack of support for broader offer solutions other than to caution that Many OA initiatives use Creative access to the research literature. They efforts should be made to help them con- Commons licenses. The two most often are instead probably a result of the career tinue to exist. used are CC-BY-NC, which means that structure in academe and the priorities The Finch report’s conclusions can be anyone is free to reuse material for non- that it engenders. Academic research offers summarized essentially as stating that commercial purposes but must gain permis- an increasingly demanding career path. broader access is a good thing, but that it sion or pay a license fee for commercial is important not to lose other important uses, and CC-BY, which means that any- aspects in the quest for improved access, one can do anything with the work without DAVID CROTTY is senior editor at Oxford including the high quality of services and compensation or permission, so long as University Press, New York, New York. usability that the research community attribution is provided.

Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 • 5 Article continued

The Finch Report warns against the use they will not accept these terms as doing so be iterative, requiring continual readjust- of the CC-BY license and the associated will harm the sustainability of their journals ment as new issues or unexpected conse- threat of lost reprint revenue, particularly and, more importantly, damage the integ- quences arise. for medical publishers, and also because it rity of the research and the authors’ repu- The first step in compliance by publish- allows others to “harvest published content tations6. Instead, they have proposed use ers is determining which agencies fund from repositories and present them on new of a CC-BY-NC-ND license, which offers your authors. Tools such as that provided platforms that would compete with the unlimited noncommercial reuse of articles by Web of Science list the funding agencies original publisher”. and blocks the generation of derivative behind the papers that a journal publishes. works. The editors are willing to work with Knowing which agencies are most relevant RCUK Policies a 36-month embargo for the green route to your journal will help publishers narrow Just after the Finch report was released, because, compared with papers published in down the policies to track. the Research Councils UK (RCUK) biomedical research journals, the citation More funders will be issuing mandates, announced its new OA policy5. It hews lives of history papers are extremely long. though, so it is likely that publishers will closely to the Finch report in some ways At the House of Lords’ hearing on the need to have a plan, regardless of wheth- but diverges from it in others, particularly subject, these and other concerns were er the funding agencies connected with in setting embargo length and licensing raised. Representatives from the RCUK papers in your journal have made any terms, which has resulted in a great deal suggested that embargo periods of 12 and policy announcements. Putting into place of controversy. As of this writing, the UK 24 months might be acceptable and noted an immediate hybrid OA option for your House of Lords has held a hearing on the that there are no plans to actively enforce journals, offering the CC-BY license for RCUK’s policy, and a second hearing, the policy for at least 5 years. articles when an APC is paid, and imple- by the Business, Innovation and Skills menting the current NIH policy on deposit Committee, is scheduled. The Wellcome Trust Policy after 12 months will probably bring a jour- The original RCUK policy applies to The Wellcome Trust has had an OA policy nal into compliance with most currently any paper for which the RCUK has funded in place since 2005 and continues to refine announced requirements. any portion of the research and goes into it. Its current policy expects funded authors effect for any paper that is submitted to a to make their publications freely available, Open Questions journal editorial office after 1 April 2013, and Wellcome supplies funds to pay APCs. Scientific publishing is a complex world, and regardless of when the funding itself was Deposit in PMC and UKPubMed Central any far-reaching policy, no matter how well actually issued. is required within 6 months of publication. intentioned, creates challenges. New OA Any paper published must meet one of As of April 2013, all articles must be pub- policies leave many unanswered questions two requirements: lished under a CC-BY license. and generate some unexpected consequenc- Compliance has been an issue for es that should be considered. None of these Option 1 is to publish via gold OA and Wellcome, with only 55%–60% of research- concerns is unsolvable, but they will take have the article become immediately freely ers following through on its rules, so it is further thought and nuance to sort out. available in the journal through payment of adding stricter enforcement, withholding An immediate positive result of the recent an APC. Articles that take this route must the final 10% of grant funding if papers policy announcements is that many new be deposited immediately on publication are not in compliance, and preventing the voices have entered the conversation. Most into the relevant repository and must use a award of future grants to noncompliant academic researchers have not been involved CC-BY license. Note that the payment of researchers. so far in the debate; access issues are not on an APC comes with an assumption that no their radar. However, funding and researcher page charges will also be paid. Compliance freedom are key concerns and it seems Compliance with funder mandates offers that everyone in research and in publishing Option 2 takes the green route. The a competitive advantage for journals, and wants to broaden access to the literature. final accepted manuscript version of the taking care of required tasks, such as The question is how to do so effectively. The paper must be deposited in the appropriate depositing articles in repositories, is an involvement of the mainstream research repository and made freely available within attractive benefit for authors. But given community in conversations about policy 6 months (or 12 months for papers in the the broad spread of funding agencies, each can help forge a better path forward. humanities or social sciences). There can with its own policy (or lack of policy), Many of the questions raised revolve be no restrictions on noncommercial reuse, determining compliance requirements can around money. The transition will be and no APC is paid to the publisher. be difficult. It is also important to note expensive, and it is unclear where the A letter signed by the editors of 21 lead- that funding agencies are still refining money to pay for it will be found. There ing British history journals announced that their policies. Funder OA policies will is a notion that the money now spent on

6 • Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 Article continued subscriptions will eventually be moved away from the researcher, the better. There to progress, and we all need to work together over to APCs, but that time may be a seems to be a great deal of confusion over and coordinate our actions. So far, many long way off, and to get there will require the differences between copyright of jour- individual groups are driving their own some redundant spending. If you are the nal articles and patents of research results, policies, at times in a vacuum without input Wellcome Trust, you can probably afford and the proposed CC-BY license may not from other parties. Scholarly publishers have that. But if you are a smaller funding be the best route to maximize return on an enormous level of expertise and experi- agency, a government funding agency in an funder investment. ence in the publishing process. It can be frus- age of belt tightening, or a poorly funded For many publications, particularly medi- trating to watch scientists and bureaucrats university or researcher, finding those extra cal journals, secondary rights licensing brings play amateur publisher and offer unrealistic dollars is not a trivial matter, and they will in a significant amount of revenue. Current plans—but instead of just complaining about probably come from funds that could oth- APC prices are subsidized by this revenue. If it, we need to take a leadership role and offer erwise be spent on research. the CC-BY license is required, this revenue better alternatives. Both Wellcome and RCUK have is lost, and must be made up elsewhere. The Funder mandates are happening. announced that they will pay APCs Nature Publishing Group already charges an Complaining about them or wishing them through block grants to institutions rather additional fee for the use of a CC-BY license away will not make any difference. They than through individual grants. That has in some journals, and other publishers are are now part of the landscape. created concern that funds will be unfairly likely to follow suit. Asking researchers to Scholarly publishing is a service industry. concentrated at major research centers, dis- pay more to support for-profit companies Our job is to provide the services that our advantaging smaller institutions. It also may and pharma marketing does not seem like a customers require. If the community wants result in the creation of an additional round particularly good trade-off. to broaden access to knowledge, to put of prepublication peer review as universities The CC-BY-NC license provides the vital knowledge into the hands of as many decide who gets the funds and where people same benefits and the same open access people as possible, then that is what we are allowed to publish. That will reduce to the academic research community but need to provide. researcher freedom and may delay publica- asks for-profit companies to pay their fair That means a cooperative approach tion as more hurdles must be cleared. share of the costs needed to support the raw rather than a combative one. It means Determining a sustainable embargo peri- materials that they are using to generate working with funders, librarians, and od is another important issue. Policies income and may provide a more sustain- researchers to prise out the details of a should be designed to be rational and able alternative. complex system, to remain vigilant against evidence based. A good deal of informa- Even so, these CC licenses are incompat- and correct for unexpected consequences, tion is available on the 12-month embargo ible with the inclusion of previously copy- and ultimately to meet the needs of our period, at least for biomedical publications, righted material, making them impossible customers. It will not be an easy task, courtesy of the NIH policy. The rationale to implement for some journals. An article but it is not impossible. More scholarly behind the 6-month embargo is unclear, about a work of art could not include a publishers must take the lead, to turn an and, as the Finch report notes, such short reproduction of the actual artwork, or a liter- antagonistic relationship into a coopera- embargoes are a worrisome unknown. ary journal could not include a substantive tive one, and to offer realistic and sustain- Policies can instead set rational criteria excerpt from a written work. Review articles able solutions that meet the needs of the for embargo length, including a mechanism could not reuse figures from previously pub- research community. for lengthening or shortening embargoes as lished papers. There are also ethical concerns evidence is collected on their effect. There that CC-BY licenses would allow reuses of References are huge differences among fields. A history patient information and images that would 1. Schonfeld RC, Housewright R., Ithaka S+R. journal sees a peak in citation around 5 years violate research subject consent agreements. Faculty Survey 2009: Key insights for libraries, after publication, which is vastly different Finally, enforcement of the new policies publishers, and societies. http://www.sr.ithaka.org/ from a bioinformatics journal, where devel- is another cost sink, requiring time and research-publications/faculty-survey-2009. opments move much more rapidly. Embargo effort to track each grant recipient and 2. Research Information Network. 2012. periods should reflect such differences. to check on the status of each publica- Communicating knowledge: how and why As the Finch report also recommends, tion. Each dollar spent in enforcing OA researchers publish and disseminate their find- licensing terms need to be carefully policies is a dollar diverted from funding ings. http://www.rin.ac.uk/our-work/communicat- approached. If we are to move away from research. ing-and-disseminating-research/communicating- the subscription business model, we need knowledge-how-and-why-researchers-pu. to find new ways to generate revenue to Taking the Lead pay for the services that we render. The A key conclusion of the Finch report is that more we can shift the financial burden all the players involved need to contribute (continued on page 8)

Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 • 7 Article Embracing Open Access

Joyce-Rachel John Providing the author a choice in our spe- journal (BMJ Open). Peer review for the cialty journals was the next obvious step for journal began in 2010, and papers were Many in the science–technology–medicine us in the OA movement. We knew that pub- published online in 2011. Our aim was to (STM) world think open access (OA) is lishing in an established journal was impor- create a journal that published all types of a recent phenomenon, something that tant, but so was the option to disseminate research, including clinical science, clinical evolved over the last several years. The research as widely as possible. We believed practice, health policy, health-care delivery, reality is that OA was launched many that we met those needs by creating an OA medical education, and research methodol- years ago, and BMJ Group was one of the option within our well-known specialty pub- ogy. Editorial policy specified that publica- pioneers of the movement. lications. The new publishing model (often tion decisions were based on the scientific Our first foray into OA occurred when referred to as a hybrid model) was developed and ethical soundness and transparency of our flagship, British Medical Journal (BMJ), after the National Institutes of Health policy the research. We also established an edito- published content as OA in the 1990s; and similar policies issued by the Wellcome rial policy to publish studies that reinforced by 1998, all BMJ research content was Trust and Research Councils UK were signed practice, policy, or research—to create an freely available. It is important to note into law in December 2007. That choice was open-door policy for research, if you will. that OA to the BMJ Group did not originally branded as unlocked but renamed The open-door policy allows research to mean merely that content was free. OA, simply as open access and is compliant with have a home at BMJ Open if it asks good to us, has always meant supporting the the policies of the main funding bodies and questions, even if the answers are not author community by supporting authors’ also serves the public interest when fund- definitive. We believe that publishing such rights in retaining copyright. BMJ had a ing is paid by tax dollars. Hybrid OA is studies in an OA environment is essential license that allowed the reuse of articles, available for a fee to any author publishing and important both for ethical reasons and and eventually the journal moved to a original research in our specialty journals for completing the research record. That Creative Commons License for research. and allows authors to make their articles belief has also led us to facilitate sharing of The journal’s policy also supports authors free online. With the OA option, we also data sets and increasing the availability of in depositing their articles in PubMed deposit the final (copyedited and typeset) research data. Central with an immediate deposit on version into PubMed Central immediately OA is changing. We recognize that OA publication as opposed to a deposit several on publication. Authors may also place the is important to the research community, months later. full, final article in the repositories of their as is choice. Already, publishers have seen choice. The article is recognized as OA in an increase in submissions, and new OA the journal table of contents and in the publishing models will no doubt be created JOYCE-RACHEL JOHN is US publisher and article itself. to meet new needs. We are proud to be a journal business director, BMJ Group, Our next step in the world of OA was pioneer, sponsor, and publisher of OA con- New York, New York. to launch the first OA general medicine tent in various publishing models. continued (from page 7)

3. Davis P, SOAP survey requires clean interpreta- to published research findings – the Finch group. 6. Institute of Historical Research. 2012. Statement tion of data. 2011. The Scholarly Kitchen. http:// 2012. http://www.researchinfonet.org/publish/ of position in relation to open access. http:// scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2011/02/02/soap- finch/. www.history.ac.uk/news/2012-12-10/statement- open-access-survey/. 5. Research Councils UK. RCUK announces new position-relation-open-access. 4. Research Information Network. Finch report: open access policy. http://www.rcuk.ac.uk/media/ report of the working group on expanding access news/2012news/Pages/120716.aspx.

8 • Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 Article PLOS and the Surge in Global Momentum for Open Access

Kristen Ratan 2012—Research Councils UK, the govern- Not all OA is equal, however, so PLOS ment response to the Finch report, and recently launched a campaign to move Open Access is the new black. PLOS the Higher Education Funding Council beyond the question “Is it open access?” (Public Library of Science) will celebrate for England—that established a framework to encourage scientists, publishers, and the 10th anniversary of its flagship journal, for introducing OA to the UK over a funders to ask “How open is it?” Three OA PLOS Biology, this year. Started in 2000 as short period, with implementation start- community partners—PLOS, the Open an organization to advocate for open access ing in April 2013. Also in July 2012, the Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OA), PLOS recognized early on that there European Commission2 published its own (OASPA), and the Scholarly Publishing needed to be a demonstration that OA set of documents on OA, giving even and Academic Resources Coalition publishing could work. There were two key greater credence to the belief that OA will (SPARC)—have recently published the aspects—quality and cost—to consider. become a prevalent mode of dissemination Web resource “HowOpenIsIt?”5 —that PLOS Biology and PLOS Medicine proved of scientific research and widen the set of helps to clarify the extent to which a pub- that high-quality publishing with OA was accepted publishing models. lication is open. In this way, authors can possible. The four community journals— PLOS applauds those developments and evaluate the relative openness of different PLOS Genetics, PLOS Pathogens, PLOS supports any organization or initiative that publishers and decide for themselves where Computational Biology, and PLOS NTDs— seeks to eliminate unnecessary barriers to to publish their research. proved that the model could break even the immediate availability, access, and use PLOS’s unique position as a publisher, financially and even draw a surplus. As of research. In the United States, OA advo- an OA advocate, and a technology-led the organization grew, PLOS ONE demon- cates secured more than 64,000 signatures innovator allows it to leverage its mission strated that the entire business model was on a petition3 that urges expanding OA to of leading a transformation in research viable. A cross between quality and scale, research funded by all US federal science communication. In 2009, PLOS became PLOS ONE has been financially successful agencies. Over the last several months, the first publisher to provide measures for several years. it has become clear that momentum has of the reach and impact of each article, PLOS ONE was not instituted to gen- reached a pivotal juncture: the commit- including downloads, citations, blogs, erate revenue. Instead, PLOS’s founders ment to OA and signs of transformation social media, and bookmarks, which are believed that journals were rejecting valid are there for all to see, but what exactly do collectively known as article-level metrics. research largely to maintain journal reputa- they mean? That launch generated excitement and tion, and that this practice might delay the PLOS defines OA publishing as mak- support in an entire community of scholars communication of science. PLOS ONE’s ing scientific articles immediately and who are interested in making the best use innovative publication criteria mean that freely available to anyone, anywhere to of the newly emerging data, for example, they publish all technically sound research be downloaded, printed, distributed, read, how they can be used to help others to regardless of its perceived impact. By and reused (including commercially) with- decide what to read in the growing body accepting any paper that was good science, out restriction as long as the author and of OA literature, to provide more measures PLOS ONE hoped to increase the pace of the original source are properly attrib- for users to determine the significance of science. And by experimenting with what uted according to the Creative Commons the work, to shift the emphasis from impact is so far a sustainable business model, PLOS Attribution License that is used. The orga- at the journal level to an article focus, and ONE has inspired others to follow suit with nization believes that only by truly embrac- to assess the impact of funding sources or variations on the model. ing OA in this way and emphasizing reuse analyze the long-term societal value gener- Today we are seeing a proliferation will we experience substantial innovation ated by scientists. of OA. On the eve of its 10th anni- and change real-life outcomes. Such results It is useful to consider the original moti- versary as a publisher, PLOS and other are exemplified by an article published vations of PLOS’s cofounders, Nobel Prize leaders in the OA community welcomed in PLOS Medicine titled “The Dirty War winner Harold Varmus, Patrick Brown, three concurrent announcements1 in July Index”,4 which provided a global health and Michael Eisen. In 2000, they intui- and human rights tool to measure the bru- tively understood the power of the Internet KRISTEN RATAN is the chief publications and tality of conflict and was adapted for use in to revolutionize every aspect of scientific products officer, Public Library of Science, NATO military environments to monitor communication, from the slow pace of San Francisco, California. civilian casualties. publishing that was holding back advances

Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 • 9 Article continued

in science to the high cost of distribution When it became clear to Varmus, Brown, the authors, readers, reviewers, and editors associated with ink on paper, and the frus- and Eisen that the established publish- for all that they have accomplished and for tration of not being able to read their own ers—with their entrenched interests in supporting the OA effort. We invite you to work or that of their colleagues without the subscription system—were not willing join us in the PLOS mission to lead a trans- multiple expensive subscriptions. Those to adopt a fundamental change in their formation in scientific communication for factors and the reluctance of traditional business, PLOS acted. “We realized that the benefit of all. publishers to embrace change led to affir- if we wanted to change how scientific mative action. research is published, we would have to References In October 2000, the founders began do it ourselves,” according to the founders. 1. Research Information Network. Finch report: informally circulating an open letter that “Moreover, we felt a responsibility to the Report of the working group on expanding access expressed the belief that the scientific supporters of the PLOS initiative to pro- to published research findings – the Finch group. literature should be a public resource that vide the kind of publications that they had http://www.researchinfonet.org/publish/finch/. is freely distributed by online public ser- pledged to support.” 2. Europa Press releases RAPID. Top news from vices (those ideas evolved to give us the All PLOS publications directly address the European commission 14 July – 7 September 6 current PubMed Central ). By signing the preconceptions about OA. Every jour- 2012. http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_ letter, scientists pledged to support—with nal article that PLOS publishes is rig- AGENDA-12-26_en.htm?locale=en. their submissions, subscriptions, and vol- orously peer reviewed; OA publications 3. PLOS Blogs. Congratulations! 25,000 people untary service as editors and reviewers— have demonstrated the same citation strong for open access…and counting! http://blogs. only journals that placed their published rates as subscription journals or higher; plos.org/plos/2012/06/congratulations-25000-peo- research articles in publicly accessible and through the charging of publication ple-strong-for-open-accessand-counting/. resources. (instead of subscription) fees paid largely 4. PLOS Medicine. The dirty war index: a public health In early 2001, the founders published by the funders and institutions that sup- and human rights tool for examining and monitoring two opinion pieces in the Proceedings of port research grants, it has also been armed conflict options. http://www.plosmedicine. the National Academy of Sciences of the possible to prove that the OA model is org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal. 7 8 United States of America and Science sustainable. pmed.0050243. that made the case for public availability. It’s a game-changing time for everyone 5. PLOS Open for Discovery. Open access spectrum Both articles led to large increases in the involved in OA: policy makers are bringing (OAS). http://www.plos.org/about/open-access/ number of signers of the open letter and about meaningful change in support of OA; howopenisit/. triggered responses from established pub- publishers are adopting it, and there are 6. PMC. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/. lishers that ranged from lukewarm to hos- now tools to evaluate how open they are; we 7. Roberts RJ. PubMed Central: The GenBank of tile. The letter eventually generated more can digitally measure the impact and reach the published literature. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. than 64,000 signatures from scientists in of research in more ways than ever before. http:// www.pnas.org/content/98/2/381.full. 175 countries. Hundreds of leading scien- OA has proved not only that can it change 8. Roberts RJ, Varmus HE, Ashburner M, et al. tists in every field of biology and medicine outcomes in our daily lives but that it is a Science Source: Building a “GenBank” of the pub- committed their support. However, few sustainable force to be reckoned with in lished literature. Science 2001:2318–2319. http:// publishers made substantial moves toward the world. All of us who participate in this www.sciencemag.org/content/291/5512/2318.1.ful increasing OA. vibrant community gratefully acknowledge l?sid=f2c9d469-136f-439f-b5c8-e48b425af20f.

10 • Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 Article An Open-Access Future: Challenges and Opportunities for the Humanities and Social Sciences

Will Schweitzer and Historical Association highlights many SAGE Open launched in January 2011 Charles B Choe potential problems with adopting cur- as the first OA megajournal to cover the Recent events, including the release of rent OA models.3 For example, the asso- HSS. Manuscripts are evaluated only the Finch report in the UK and protest ciation points out that many historians on the basis of their research meth- by a growing number of universities over lack federal research funding that could ods and scientific validity, not thematic rising periodical costs, have dramatically offset gold OA article processing charges significance. Authors pay an APC if increased the awareness of open access (APCs), and few institutions have funds their manuscript is accepted. As of this (OA) in the humanities and social sciences set aside to pay APCs, so economically writing, the fee is $99. SAGE also con- (HSS). OA presents a number of unique disadvantaged historians could be margin- siders hardship requests from authors. challenges for HSS disciplines; such fields alized. The 2010 Study of Open Access From its launch through the end of as communication studies and history can- Publishing (SOAP) project survey rein- December 2012, SAGE Open received not easily replicate OA policies or practices forces this assertion.4 Of roughly 38,000 1,390 submissions. Of those submissions, that are prevalent in science, technology, HSS and STEM researchers surveyed, 76% received a final decision; of those engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 39% of respondents indicated that they that received a final decision, 16% were disciplines. Faced with the inevitability lacked funding to pay APCs. The SOAP accepted, 45% were asked to submit a of an OA future, many HSS scholars are survey also indicated that many social major or minor revision, and 39% were struggling to find a collective voice on how scientists are unaware of appropriate OA rejected. It is important to note that all to adapt and reform scholarly communica- journals for their research and that many papers are peer reviewed. tion in their fields (Nosek and Bar-Anan’s researchers are skeptical about the qual- SAGE Open has quickly become one of recent article in Psychological Inquiry is an ity of OA journals. That skepticism is SAGE’s most frequently accessed titles. In excellent example1). probably attributable to the fact that 2011, SAGE Open’s articles were down- That is not to say that the HSS are few, if any, HSS OA journals are ranked loaded over 51,600 times—an average of anachronistic; some of the earliest OA or are considered acceptable for promo- 782 downloads per article. By this metric, journals were social science titles, includ- tion and tenure evaluations. In addition, SAGE Open was the third-most frequently ing New Horizons in Adult Education, many HSS publishers and societies are downloaded SAGE journal that year. The launched in 1987 by Syracuse University, concerned that green OA publishing, in early successes suggest that a gold OA and Stevan Harnad’s Psycoloquy, first pub- which articles published in subscription megajournal may provide a viable solution lished in1989 (and later sponsored by the journals are deposited in an open reposito- for the HSS; however, more time is needed American Psychological Association). ry, may jeopardize subscription revenues, to confirm that. The Social Science Research Network on which many societies are dependent, OA is certain to be part of the scholarly repository debuted in 1994, just 3 years particularly if articles are embargoed for communication landscape going forward, after ArXiv. Today, the Directory of Open any period less than 12 months. and the HSS will not be exempt from this Access Journals lists just over 1,600 OA SAGE discusses OA extensively with shift. Many issues need to be resolved, most HSS titles, roughly 20% of the total num- its HSS authors and societies, trying to important how the cost of OA publishing ber of titles listed.2 find ways to overcome many of these can be supported in the HSS. SAGE and What challenges does OA present for challenges. SAGE is testing several OA its society partners will continue to dis- HSS? A recent statement by the American models, including launching SAGE Open, cuss and experiment with OA to find the a gold OA “megajournal”; expanding the most equitable and sustainable publishing SAGE Choice program, a hybrid OA pro- model. In the meantime, SAGE will con- WILL SCHWEITZER is senior editor, journals, gram that allows authors to pay to make tinue to advocate for more funding for HSS and CHARLES B CHOE is online product their articles OA within a traditional sub- authors and will work with its partners in manager, SAGE Publications, Thousand scription journal; and launching new OA academe to help to usher in this new era in Oaks, California. journals with its partners. academic publishing.

Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 • 11 Article continued

Table 1. SAGE Open’s submissions and published articles through References October 2012, arranged by discipline. 1. Nosek BA, Bar-Anan Y. Scientific utopia. Opening scientific communication. Psychol Inq. 2012; Discipline No. Submissions No. Published Papers 23:217–243. 2. Directory of Open Access Journals. http://www. Education 254 31 doaj.org/doaj?func=subject&cpid=87. Psychology 184 19 3. American Historical Association. AHA statement Sociology 116 19 on scholarly journal publishing [press release]; Communication 107 7 2012. http://blog.historians.org/news/1734/aha- statement-on-scholarly-journal-publishing. Management 102 13 4. Dallmier-Tiessen S, Darby R, Goerner B, et al. Political science 101 7 2011. Highlights from the SOAP project survey: Criminology 51 5 what scientists think about open access publishing; Humanities 51 7 2011. http://arxiv.org/abs/1101.5260. Economics 49 6 Research methods 27 6 Anthropology 22 0 Science, technology, and 20 0 medicine Social work 17 0 Public health 15 0 Urban studies 13 0 Nursing 6 0 Information science 6 0 Public administration 5 0 Linguistics 4 0 Computer science 4 0 Social science 3 0 Total 1,157 120

Asking for Trouble: Submit questions or problems to “Solution Corner”!

One of the returning features of Science Editor will be “Solution Corner”, a column that explores problems and challenges that our members deal with in their jobs, be they technical, managerial, or other issues in the STM publishing realm. This column needs your input! If you submit a question that is general enough to be relevant to many of our members to [email protected], we will run them by two or three professionals in the field; your question and their responses will be printed in Science Editor. We look forward to your submissions!

12 • Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 Article The American Physical Society’s Experiences in Open-Access Publishing

Daniel T Kulp Gold: Someone pays to make the article tor scientists and engineers. The journal is available on publication without cost supported primarily by contributions from The American Physical Society (APS) barriers. major accelerator laboratories, although is a non-profit membership organization Public: Researchers, students, and the APS continues to contribute to the support representing more than 51,000 physicists general public have subscription-free of the journal rather than sell subscriptions. who are working to advance and diffuse the access. A second special-topics journal, Physical knowledge of physics through a series of pro- Review Special Topics–Physics Education grams and activities, not the least of which I will describe APS’s activities in each type Research, followed 7 years later and, unlike is its family of research journals. Currently of access. PRST-AB, is funded primarily by article- publishing more than 19,000 articles and APS has long been a green OA pub- processing charges paid by authors or their nearly 155,000 pages of physics each year, lisher. The society has supported and pro- institutions. the Physical Review family of journals is moted the physics e-print arXiv since its When those two online-only journals accessed by researchers worldwide and has inception in 1991 through a liberal and were launched, the primary intent was to played an active role in supporting the expansive transfer-of-copyright agreement. ensure that readers had barrier-free access needs of physicists to share and distribute The agreement not only allows authors to to research articles. The copyright remained ideas, information, and knowledge. post their final peer-reviewed version on with APS, and reuse was limited. The With open access (OA) becoming a e-print services, such as arXiv, but allows approach was formalized and applied to all prevalent topic of debate at the government them to post the APS versions of articles the Physical Review journals in 2006 through level and discussions expanding to mandat- on their and their institutions’ Web sites; a program called “Free to Read”. That made ed free access to publicly funded research, this clearly goes beyond standard green all the APS journals except Reviews of APS recently articulated its long-held posi- OA. Thus arXiv represents the evolution Modern Physics hybrid open access. tion on OA in the following statement: from traditional postal and e-mail distri- In 2011, Free to Read was replaced by bution to specific individuals to a more Creative Commons (CC) licensing when The APS supports the principles of expanded and unknown audience. it became clear that readers expected more Open Access to the maximum extent The transfer-of-copyright agreement than read-only access to journal articles. possible that allows the Society to main- is not static. APS has consistently been APS not only implemented that with one tain peer-reviewed high-quality jour- open to finding solutions that support our of the most liberal and open licenses avail- nals, secure archiving, and the Society’s authors and readers. As more and more able (CC-BY 3.0) but applied it to all long-term financial stability, to the ben- institutions followed the lead of Harvard’s previous Free to Read articles without col- efit of the scientific enterprise. faculty in mandating OA deposit into lecting any additional fees. institutional repositories, APS negotiated In the same year and in coordination Although that statement was not formu- agreements with the institutions to allow with the introduction of CC licensing, lated until 2009, it embodies our position them to deposit manuscripts into the repos- APS introduced Physical Review X (PRX), on green, gold, and public access for more itories on behalf of authors without the an electronic-only OA journal with high than 2 decades. need for special addenda or for authors to editorial standards. Although introduced This article is not meant to be a broad seek waivers from their departments. After during a period in which megajournals, guide to OA; rather, it describes APS’s extended discussions with two authors, such as PLOS ONE, were being launched, approach to it. For the purposes of this APS modified the agreement in 2008 to PRX filled a niche in which high editorial article, the different types of OA can be allow authors to retain copyright when standards and the expectation of excel- broadly summed up as follows: they create derivative works based on their lence and importance, rather than techni- published APS articles. cal correctness, were primary features of Green: The author’s final version is APS has been involved in gold OA published papers. available in an institutional repository publishing since 1998, when it introduced Finally, in response to calls to make results or in a subject repository. its first OA journal, Physical Review Special of government-funded research available to Topics–Accelerators and Beams (PRST-AB). DANIEL T KULP is editorial director, American The journal was created in response to the Physical Society, New York, New York. need for a specialized journal for accelera- (continued on page 17)

Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 • 13 Article Evolving Access: Genetics Society of America Journals GENETICS and G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics

Tracey DePellegrin Offering Open Access in ately available OA articles: for a nominal GENETICS fee [too nominal!!], authors were able to The journal GENETICS published its first make their articles free-to-read OA. Today, issue in January 1916, featuring Calvin Like many longstanding journals in scien- about 20% of authors elect to pay an addi- Bridges’s proof that chromosomes are the tific publishing, GENETICS has a hybrid tional fee for that option. All editorials and carriers of heredity.1 This first American business model that derives income from some articles selected by the editors (such journal of genetics predated the profes- institutional subscriptions as well as author as GENETICS’ first educational primer, sional society that has since become its publication charges. In addition to being published in August 2012) are made free publisher, the Genetics Society of America available to its subscriber base, the full con- to read. Authors who choose that option— (GSA). tents of GENETICS are available to mem- whether required by their funders (such as The desire to provide access to peer- bers of GSA and freely accessible to every- the Wellcome Trust or the Howard Hughes reviewed scientific research is nothing one 12 months after each issue’s publica- Medical Institute) or because they “just new. Henry Oldenburg, founding editor of tion date. In 2010, after more than 90 years want it to be OA”—report satisfaction. the Philosophical Transactions of the Royal of print publication, GENETICS moved to Many demur because they cannot be sure Society, the oldest scientific journal, wrote an online-only publishing model. whether OA will result in their articles in the inaugural issue in March 1665, GENETICS was in the vanguard promot- being seen, read, or cited more often; oth- “And No Small Number are at present ing rapid access to its content. The jour- ers seem certain that free-to-read OA will engaged for those weighty Productions, nal began offering “publish-ahead-of-print” increase their articles’ reach. which require Time and Assistance, for (now called “early online”) in late 2004, with their due Maturity. . . . But every many authors’ manuscripts (“preprints”) freely Creating G3 may receive some benefit from these available on the GENETICS Web site and Around 2009, GENETICS’ Editorial Parcels.”2 Could we imagine what kind in PubMed. Those manuscripts are rough Board began to explore the need for a pub- of Creative Commons license Oldenburg cuts—devoid of copyediting (which can be lication that would function as a sister of would have assigned to his journal in the substantial and provide marked improve- GENETICS and complement its mission. 17th century? ments in readability), formatting, and other Why consider a second journal? Because, Nearly 400 years later, in this rapidly enhancements that add value to the final as Bob Dylan sang, “The Times, They Are changing scholarly publishing environ- article, the version of record. During 2012, a-Changin’.”3 Recent strategic changes, ment, most scientific publishers, including in response to discussions with our popula- and a paradigm shift at GENETICS had GSA, recognize the need to remain agile tion and evolutionary geneticist authors brought a revised scope statement that and resilient as we juggle the interests of and readers, the GSA journals developed meant publication in the journal would multiple (often competing) audiences and a policy that allows authors to deposit be reserved for articles that describe a sig- stakeholders while remaining true to our manuscripts into preprint repositories such nificant advance in the field, have broad intellectual and scientific missions. This as arXiv, before review or submission. If the appeal, and are unusually novel. That led article presents the history of the GSA’s article is eventually published, the journal to more rejections and more submissions journals GENETICS and G3: Genes requires that authors insert a link from the returned to authors without review. And |Genomes |Genetics primarily in terms of preprint in arXiv to the final article on the that resulted in a slimmer GENETICS, their access models and some of the shoals GENETICS journal Web site. with the number of articles published pur- they have navigated. In 2008, responding to feedback from posely declining from 576 in 2007 to 288 members of its community, in particular in 2011. The scope change left a number those whose funding agencies were encour- of authors without a venue for publication aging publication in open-access (OA) of some of their valuable work. TRACEY DEPELLEGRIN is executive edi- journals, GSA began exploring a hybrid The new journal, G3: Genes|Genomes| tor, Genetics Society of America Journals, OA model for GENETICS. In November Genetics, was born of the GENETICS Bethesda, Maryland. 2008, GENETICS offered its first immedi- Editorial Board’s desire to serve that group

14 • Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 Article continued

G3 Scope Statement researchers’ actual behavior (such as sub- Update on G3 mitting a manuscript to G3 or reading As of December 2012, 230 papers had G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics provides the journal) would match their expressed been published in G3, on topics as varied a forum for the publication of high- attitudes (“The field needs an OA journal as the genetics and genomics of Drosophila, quality foundational research, partic- like G3”). Other considerations included a mice, plants, fungi, the nematode worm ularly research that generates useful trend toward OA for genetics and genom- Caenorhabditis elegans, humans, insects, bac- genetic and genomic information such ics articles and the need for a scholarly teria, viruses, and livestock; bioinformatics; as genome maps, single gene studies, publisher to provide fast and open access to population and evolutionary genetics; and genome-wide association and QTL data and research useful to other scientists. tools. The number of submissions and arti- studies, as well as mutant screens and Lively discussion (and much debate!) cles published continues to increase, and the advances in methods and technology. took place among editors, GSA Board journal continues to expand its breadth. The Editorial Board of G3 believes that members, current and prospective authors, As sister journals published by GSA, G3 rapid dissemination of this research is OA advocates, OA skeptics, scholars in and GENETICS complement each other the necessary foundation for analysis scientific publishing, consultants, and in numerous ways. GSA has published or that leads to mechanistic insights. members of the various scientific com- is publishing sets of related papers (“blocks” munities. Discussions took place concern- of articles) in both journals, including col- G3: Genes|Genomes|Genetics meets ing scientific content, scope, strategy, and lections on the mouse collaborative cross, the critical and growing need of the finances, among other elements. A few genomic selection, and (in 2013–2014), and genetics community for rapid review critical questions were: Is launching an the genetics of immunity. Authors submit- and publication of useful results in all online-only OA journal in the best inter- ting manuscripts to GENETICS that are areas of genetics. G3 offers the oppor- est of GSA and its mission (“to foster a outside the journal’s scope but are thought tunity to publish the puzzling finding or unified science of genetics and to maxi- worthy of publication are encouraged to to present unpublished results that may mize its intellectual and practical impact”)? allow their manuscripts to be considered for not have been submitted for review and How would GSA define the scope of G3 publication in G3; most agree. In some cases, publication due to a perceived lack of a so that its community clearly understood G3 has been able to offer authors “accept potential high-impact finding. the different missions of the two GSA with revision” decisions based on the exist- journals? Would launching another journal ing reviews for GENETICS. That process be in the best interest of GSA’s members, serves authors by allowing them quick publi- of authors—many of whom are GSA mem- authors, the scientific community, institu- cation without having to revise and resubmit bers—and the broader genetics community, tions, and readers? How could GSA assess to another journal, while making the GSA by providing a venue for publishing high- and accurately predict its level of intellec- journals a welcome venue for submissions. quality, useful research and rapidly dissemi- tual and fiscal risk and return? What type Has G3 reached its goal to provide nating information. The GSA recognized of Creative Commons license would work authors with fast, clear decisions? The aver- the need for a respected venue for publica- for G3? (G3 uses a Creative Commons age time to first decision in 2012 is 30 days. tion of genetic screens, genome sequences Attribution license, CC-BY 3.0.) While there is room for improvement, our of novel species, population data, quantita- One of the most important tasks was to first responsibility is to ensure that authors tive trait locus (QTL) studies, collections identify the right scientist to lead such a receive fair, helpful reviews and clear deci- of novel mutants, genome maps, human venture. After a thorough international sions. G3 is also considering more frequent, genetics studies outside the new scope of search, Brenda J. Andrews, professor and possibly continuous, publication. GENETICS, and more. Only later did we director of the Terrence Donnelly Centre for How is the business model working? As recognize the financial opportunities that Cellular and Biomolecular Research at the an OA journal not supported by institu- G3 potentially offers to the GSA. University of Toronto, was appointed editor- tional subscriptions, memberships, grants, G3 was launched not to compete with in-chief in July 2010. Infusing G3 with ener- or other funding sources, G3 must make GENETICS but to strengthen it; the plan gy and vision, Andrews assembled a team of its operations fully sustainable through is for the two journals to provide a syn- four (since expanded to five) senior editors publication charges and other efficien- ergy. The OA model seemed a natural fit and nearly 80 associate editors, all of whom cies (advertising and reprint revenue are for G3 as a native-online new journal for are well-regarded practicing scientists. In fall expected to remain negligible). Manuscript which quick publication is top priority. 2010, working with some of the senior edi- volume has been trending upward, but We were uncertain of the degree to which tors and the editor-in-chief of GENETICS, the initial investment to launch G3 was OA would drive submissions, but G3 is, in G3 began to accept submissions. In June part, an experiment to determine whether 2011, G3 published its inaugural issue. (continued on page 17)

Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 • 15 Article One Society’s Perspective on Open-Access Publishing

Heather Goodell other fields were demanding. The AHA The feasibility study led to an RFP for did not have to experiment with the 11 a publisher and a search for an editor- The mission of the American Heart existing, traditional-model journals that in-chief. The AHA Scientific Publishing Association (AHA) is “Building healthier it already published. However, the com- Committee announced its intent to launch lives, free of cardiovascular diseases and mittee could see that traditional scientific the new OA journal at the AHA’s annual stroke.” The stated 2020 Impact Goal publishing was changing, even if slowly, meeting in November 2010. Although of the AHA is to reduce cardiovascular and that the AHA needed to be poised to lacking both an editor and a journal name, disease and stroke by 20% and improve adapt. The 11 existing journals had accep- the OA journal was promoted extensively the health of all Americans by 20% by tance rates as low at 10%, and despite at the meeting. The wonders of marketing! 2020. The AHA has a dynamic strategic- launching six journals in 2008, many good Committee members also discussed the planning process. In 2009 and 2010, as the scientific papers were being rejected. In journal at length with current AHA editors AHA was completing a cycle of strategic addition, none of the AHA journals was to allay misgivings and encourage referrals planning, one of the action strategies of strategically positioned to address part of from the 11 existing journals. Objectives the AHA Strategic Plan (driving to the the 2020 mission: the prevention of car- included using the same peer-review pro- 2020 goal) was to “Accelerate Science diac diseases and stroke in the population. cess and achieving a slightly higher accep- Interpretation”. “Open-science” methods None focused on prevention, especially tance rate. The AHA’s 16 member councils were called for to speed “the interpreta- primary prevention, behavioral studies, were asked to nominate editorial-board tion of research relevant to the attainment and so on. The AHA needed a good representatives, with the editor-in-chief and maintenance of ideal cardiovascular vehicle to publish such research. making the final selections. It is the com- health into guidelines, statements, public The AHA Scientific Publishing mittee’s hope that all the councils will par- policy recommendations or other expert Committee engaged a consultant to per- ticipate, but especially those representing guidance” and to speed “interpretation form a feasibility study. The committee nutrition, physical activity, nursing, and of research relevant to maintenance and spoke with AHA editors, to the AHA other fields important to the AHA’s overall improvement of health throughout the councils, and to the AHA’s volunteer lead- mission, fields not represented often in the lifespan into guidelines, statements, public ership. It looked at rejected articles and existing 11 journals. policy recommendations or other expert where they were eventually published. The The Journal of the American Heart guidance”. AHA already had a referral model in place Association, JAHA, began accepting sub- Open science means much more than with Circulation in that it referred articles missions in November 2011 and published open-access (OA) publishing, especially to the six Circulation-branded journals that its first articles in February 2012. The inasmuch as the AHA is also a funder launched in 2008. referral process continues to be refined of research (the second largest funder of We, the committee, realized the need to because we are also switching manuscript cardiovascular disease and stroke research ensure an easy, well-established payment submission systems. Until all 12 journals in the United States, after the National process for authors and their funders. The are using one system, the process will be a Institutes of Health). Although the AHA only income that a publisher can plan to bit tedious. JAHA submissions are steady, Research Committee is still deliberating receive for an OA journal is author fees. and we are encouraged by the number of about some open-science strategies, the We knew that we needed a turnkey opera- direct submissions (not referred from the AHA Scientific Publishing Committee tion rather than trying to gather those other journals). The editor-in-chief and had already embarked on educating payments ourselves. We also wanted to the staff have been able to roll with the AHA leaders about OA publishing. The emphasize speed, although some of our punches, handling the surprises that invari- Scientific Publishing Committee did that journals already publish articles within ably occur in launching a new journal. We knowing that AHA volunteers, authors, 2 weeks of submission. However, except do not know what the future holds and are and readers had not been clamoring for in the case of an “editor’s pick” article, about to embark on more strategic plan- an OA publishing option as researchers in an article would not be freely available ning, but we believe that we are better until 6 months after publication (the 11 positioned to adapt and contribute to the HEATHER GOODELL is director, scientific pub- traditional-model journals also make origi- AHA mission. lishing, at the American Heart Association, nal research articles freely available after Thanks to Jody Hundley, AHA production Dallas, Texas. 6 months). manager, for reviewing and editing this article.

16 • Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 Article PeerJ Heralds in a New Era of Innovation and Affordability in Academic Publishing

Peter Binfield “if society can set a goal to sequence a “open” peer review (reviewers are encour- human genome for just $99, then why aged to provide their names; authors can PeerJ (https://peerj.com), a new jour- shouldn’t academics be given the oppor- then reproduce the peer-review history nal publisher founded on the princi- tunity to openly publish their research alongside their published articles). The ples of affordability, innovation, and for a similar amount?” journal uses a Creative Commons License; open access, published its first 30 peer- PeerJ aims to establish a new model for all articles are free for readers to read, reviewed articles on 12 February 2013, the publication of all well-reported, scien- distribute, or reuse provided authors are premiering several innovative features. tifically sound research in the biological properly attributed. Launched by Jason Hoyt (formerly at and medical sciences. The journal has an PeerJ is unique in that it operates a Mendeley and Stanford University) and economical and efficient peer-review and “membership model”: Authors become life- Peter Binfield (formerly at PLOS ONE), publication system and has assembled an time members for a single payment, which PeerJ was shaped from the premise that editorial board of 800 academics, including can be as low as $99, giving them the abil- an advisory board of 20. Articles undergo ity to freely publish their articles thereafter. rigorous peer review; publication decisions As a result, publication costs for authors PETER BINFIELD is co-founder and publisher are made on scientific validity rather than are significantly lower than for similar OA of PeerJ. on perceived impact. PeerJ encourages publications. continued (from page 13) the taxpaying public, APS became (to nations. APS provides access to all its ensuring that researchers and students at my knowledge) the first publisher to offer journals, back to 1893, to any US public all levels have access. APS has been an free public access to the entire Physical library or high school that agrees to provide active participant in OA for a long time Review corpus. This access has so far been in-house, walk-in access to its patrons. and will continue to work with our com- limited to the United States, but plans are APS remains committed to produc- munity in a responsive and responsible being made to expand the service to other ing journals of the highest quality while manner. continued (from page 15) substantial, and it is too early to pre- (which may inadvertently quash publisher to rise to the challenge, commit to our dict its long-term success. In addition, the innovation and growth); and many other mission to foster scholarship in our field astounding success of PLOS ONE makes it factors, depending on publisher niche. of science and support our colleagues who difficult for new journals to compete in the Clearly, there is no one predefined path pursue it, adjust our vision and practice OA marketplace. to (or definition of) success, though intel- when necessary, and set a high bar. It lectual and fiscal sustainability are criti- is our intent that G3, like GENETICS Looking Forward cal elements. For the GSA journals, less since its inception nearly a century ago, Times are interesting (perhaps a bit too than 2 years after the launch of G3, it is will tell stories of discoveries for years to interesting…) for scholarly publishers. The too early to draw firm conclusions. We come. arena is competitive and dynamic, with are, in many ways, still at the beginning rapid proliferation of journals (several well of our experiments with OA, even as we References funded with staff tens of times the size of remain optimistic and buoyed by commu- 1. Bridges CB. Non-disjunction as proof of the chro- those of many society journals); pressure nity response. mosome theory of heredity. Genetics. 1916;1:1– from authors, funders, and institutions to Publishers—in particular, scholarly soci- 52, 107–163. provide OA for content; increasing pres- ety publishers such as GSA—have myriad 2. Oldenburg, H. Phil Trans. 1665;1(1–22) sure from academic libraries and insti- constituents and responsibilities, each dis- 3. Dylan, B. The Times They Are a-Changin’. tutions to keep subscription prices flat tinct and important. It is our responsibility Columbia, 1963. LP.

Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 • 17 Article Predatory Publishers Threaten to Erode Scholarly Communication

Jeffrey Beall might have a silver lining. It is probable That means that Hindawi's profit margin, that over time the editors and publish- at least for that period, was 52%, much Predatory open-access (OA) publishers— ers who care about publishing ethics and higher than Reed Elsevier's 36%.3 the ones that exploit the gold (author- about following industry standards will be Science editors and the scientific com- pays) publishing model for their own prof- increasingly valued for the good work that munity alike ought to be concerned that it—threaten the reputation of rigorously they do. The corruption of the predatory the editor-free Hindawi model will spread peer-reviewed OA journals. Many OA publishers will compel academe to assign throughout the industry, not only because advocates singularly champion the open greater value to the honest publishers, their of the potential loss of positions but because licensing of scholarly works but largely editors, and their publications. of what it will mean for learned pub- ignore the emerging serious quality issues. lishing itself. Reading CSE's White Paper The result is an ever-increasing number of The Editor-in-Chief: on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal low-quality and even corrupt publishers, A Diminishing Presence? Publications, 2012 Update, I see a long sec- many of whom self-identify as noble for Hindawi Publishing Corporation is an tion called “Editor roles and responsibili- merely functioning as OA publishers—an example of a successful OA publisher. I ties”.4 Reading that section raises the ques- identification that far too many OA advo- do not classify it as a predatory publisher, tions of who will be covering all those roles cates support. but it is valuable to examine Hindawi as a in journals that lack editors and whether The trend of increasing numbers of case study of where OA publishing might the responsibilities will be met at all. predatory OA publishers gives the regret- be taking the scholarly publishing indus- One of the main qualities that may sepa- table impression that the quality aspects try. Hindawi publishes 444 journals spread rate high-quality journals from vanity-press of scholarly publishing are diminishing. among five brands. The brands include the journals is competent editorship, including For example, one major OA publisher is original Hindawi journals, the incongruous- editors-in-chief and manuscript editors. stealthily doing away with journal editors, ly named International Scholarly Research Among the predatory publishers that I leaving accept–reject decisions to its staff Network (which is not a network in the observe and track, most purport to have members. Author misconduct is increas- usual sense of the word), Case Reports in editors-in-chief and editorial boards, but in ing, especially in non-Western countries. Medicine, Conference Papers in Science, many cases the editors are honorary or the The continuing financial crisis has made and Dataset Papers in Science. Hindawi editorial board members' names are added governments worldwide demand more is an OA publisher and charges about US without their permission or knowledge or accountability on the part of the colleges $1,000 as the article-processing fee per are even made up. Among those publishers, and universities that they fund or subsidize. accepted paper. The publisher relies on it is easy to observe the effects of the lack of Accordingly, the schools are increasingly e-mail as its chief method of soliciting edi- editorial oversight. Papers are poorly edited called on to demonstrate a return on invest- torial board memberships and manuscripts. or not edited at all, peer review is obviously ment, and quantifying faculty publications One of the controversial aspects of not carried out, and the many variations of is a common method of making the return Hindawi's peer-review process is that its author misconduct, especially plagiarism, evident. In turn, that increases pressure journals do not have editors-in-chief. are evident in the papers published. on faculty to publish, so many hurriedly Instead, editorial duties are carried out by The poor editing and author misconduct write or copy publications that the growing staff members at the company's headquar- bring into question the suitability of gold predatory publishing market is more than ters in Cairo.1 Contributing to Hindawi's OA as a model for financing scholarly pub- eager to accept and publish for a fee. success is the combination of Egypt’s very lishing. The model focuses on pleasing the In contrast, if you are an honest and con- high unemployment rate and a well-educat- authors rather than the readers because the scientious editor of a science journal, all ed middle class. Hindawi has much lower authors pay the bills. Authors want their the plagiarism and all the OA corruption labor costs than most publishers. Indeed, works to be reviewed and published quickly, Hindawi is very profitable. In a September and they want to submit their papers to a 2012 interview, the company's owner, journal that offers them a good chance of JEFFREY BEALL is the scholarly initiatives Ahmed Hindawi, stated that “our results for being accepted—a strategy that saves time by librarian at the Auraria Library at the the first half of 2012 show revenues of $6.3 avoiding the need for multiple submissions. University of Colorado, Denver, Colorado. million with a net profit of $3.3 million.”2 The predatory publishers know that and

18 • Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 Article continued

tailor their business practices to offer what nals, and this results in a surfeit of recently Recommender systems will be developed their customers, the authors, want. They are launched journals whose titles begin with that filter out low-quality and question- extremely good at exploiting the naiveté of “International Journal of . . . ”. able research and favor research published junior faculty and graduate students. under the careful scrutiny of a well-quali- The Future fied editor-in-chief. Social-media tools as Author Misconduct Divisions among OA advocates have wors- applied to scholarly publishing will help The publishers are not the only players ened the problems surrounding the adop- to separate the high-quality works from in the OA movement that are “gaming” tion of OA as a distribution model: some the low-quality ones, and new metrics will the system. I observe almost daily acts of fight for green (author self-archived) OA, confirm the value of well-edited journals. author misconduct in predatory publish- and others for gold. Any questioning of the In the meantime, however, we all need to ers' journals. Most of what I see involves OA model generally attracts sharp and per- advance our scientific literacy, which now piracy in the form of outright plagiarism sonal criticism. Some advocates seem more must include the ability to detect and avoid or self-plagiarism. It is not uncommon concerned with shutting down commercial scholarly publishing scams.5 for authors to use a previously published publishers than with opening up access to paper as a template for a new paper that scholarly research. References they are writing. In doing so, they change The number of predatory publishers is 1. Poynder R. The OA interviews: Ahmed Hindawi, some of the words but keep the earlier exploding, especially in South Asia. The founder of Hindawi Publishing Corporation. article's structure. When I document such word is out: you can make easy money Accessed 2012 Nov 6. http://poynder.blogspot. plagiarism in e-mails to predatory pub- by setting up a scholarly publishing Web com/2012/09/the-oa-interviews-ahmed-hindawi- lishers, I get a variety of reactions. Some site and accepting payments to publish founder.html. ignore the message. Others quietly remove fourth-rate articles. Never before has it 2. Hindawi A. The OA interviews: Ahmed Hindawi, the article without printing a retraction been so easy to set up and start a schol- founder of Hindawi Publishing Corporation. statement. arly publishing operation. Numerous tem- Accessed 2012 Nov 6. http://poynder.blogspot. It is clear that there is intense pressure to plates exist, and the Public Knowledge com/2012/09/the-oa-interviews-ahmed-hindawi- publish, especially in the developing world, Project's Open Journal Systems open- founder.html. and that the predatory publishers are mere- source software is being used by many cor- 3. Till JE. E-mail sent to the BOAI Forum e-mail ly meeting the need that the pressure is rupt publishers as their journal publishing list on 2012-09-17. Accessed 2012 Nov 6. http:// creating. A correspondent in Tamil Nadu, platform. threader.ecs.soton.ac.uk/lists/boaiforum/2769. India, recently wrote that “our fellows have At the end of the day, all those question- html. started to publish quick papers in the jour- able publishing practices could be good 4. Council of Science Editors, Editorial Policy nals published by these people, as a force news for the traditional scholarly publish- Committee. CSE's white paper on promot- by institute to produce more output. After ers and for OA publishers who strive to ing integrity in scientific journal publications, looking at your website, I have fear that our add value to research by following rig- 2012 Update. Accessed 2012 Nov 6. http:// people [are] falling prey to such journals” orous editorial and scholarly-publishing www.councilscienceeditors.org/i4a/pages/index. (2012 e-mail from HN Kumara to me). The industry standards. High-quality research cfm?pageid=3313. institutes grant more credit for work pub- publications will become more valued in 5. Beall J. Predatory publishers are corrupting open lished in international than national jour- an academe filled with rubbish articles. access. 2012. Nature. 2012;489(7415):179.

CSE's White Paper on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal Publications Update Released Spring 2012 View or download at www.councilscienceeditors.org

Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 • 19 Article Reshaping Scholarly Communication: Why Faculty Are Adopting Institutional Open- Access Policies

Richard A Schneider vary in details, but they operate similarly: By system-wide faculty boycott of NPG in 2010 default, faculty members grant their institu- when NPG proposed raising licensing costs; On 21 May 2012, the Academic Senate of tion permission (through a non-exclusive the proposed increase has now been shelved. the University of California, San Francisco license) to disseminate the products of their The CEO of Macmillan, the parent compa- (UCSF) voted unanimously to make elec- scholarship freely and immediately through ny for NPG, visited UCSF to discuss our OA tronic versions of current and future scien- an OA repository. Faculty members have policy, the process of peer review, and com- tific articles freely available to the public the option to deny or delay permission (to mercial publishing more broadly. We have and thus made UCSF the largest scientific trigger a waiver of the license or policy) for had a similar conversation with the publisher institution in the nation to adopt an open- any specific work. The implications of a UC of the Proceedings of the National Academy of access (OA) policy and among the first pub- system-wide OA policy are vast inasmuch as Sciences of the United States of America. We lic universities to do so. The issues are com- the UC system generates about 50,000 jour- encourage faculty to ask publishers that do plex, but our motivation was simple: The nal articles each year—more than 3% of the not yet accept our OA policy to modify their predominant system for scholarly communi- world’s published articles. The California author agreements to be compliant. cation has become economically unsustain- Digital Library supports the repository as UCSF faculty members have a new aware- able, restrictive, and critically limited in its part of its eScholarship service. ness about author rights, access to their ability to disseminate our research. Questions often asked include, “Have we own work, and how their choices of where Our faculty members have come to rec- now achieved our objectives? When will fac- they publish affect those rights and access. ognize that although there remains a need ulty and the public see benefits? How have More faculty members now understand that to access increasing amounts of scholarly the commercial publishers responded?” publishing and disseminating their scholarly materials, the costs of purchasing such The OA policy has been an overwhelm- work so that it is accessible to all has tremen- materials continue to rise, largely because ing success. UCSF publishes about 375 dous advantages, and they are embracing of the pricing models of commercial pub- peer-reviewed, primary research articles per such OA journals as PLOS, eLife, and PeerJ. lishers. Traditional fee-for-access publishing month; waiver and embargo requests have Other institutions are following our models restrict the distribution of scholarly averaged 18 per month, under 5% of the lead. The movement toward institutional publications to those who can afford sub- total output. Thus, 95% of the articles are repositories that enable OA will require some scriptions or per-article download prices. published in the repository without waivers individual sacrifices and inconveniences for Across its 10-campus system, the University or embargoes and are immediately and freely faculty at first but will result in far-reaching of California (UC) spends about $40 mil- available to the public and other scholars. rewards for academe and society. We have lion per year to access scholarly materials, Those percentages are similar to the ones committed to developing a system that mini- including the works of UC authors that are seen by our colleagues at Harvard and MIT. mizes administrative burden on the faculty. submitted to publishers. Many other uni- The policy has markedly advanced our We are working with publishers to make versities and the public have less access. conversations with commercial publishers. automatic deposits into our repository on UCSF has worked closely with colleagues When we implemented the policy, we noti- behalf of faculty as some currently do for on other campuses to develop an OA policy fied publishers about UCSF faculty authors’ PubMed Central. An easy system for man- that it hopes will be adopted throughout expectations. Most of the publishers indicat- aging rapid workflow for deposits, addenda, the UC system. The policy is similar to ed that they would comply with the policy; a embargoes, and waivers has been developed. those already in place in more than 140 few raised objections or asked for additional UCSF’s OA policy has changed the peer institutions, including Harvard, the clarification about what they could do to be culture and expectations at UCSF with Massachusetts Institute of Technology compliant. In August 2012, we met with respect to scholarly communication. As (MIT), Duke, and Princeton. Those policies Elsevier executives who came to UCSF to faculty who provide the content, peer request help in navigating the policy and review, and editorship that sustain tradi- to talk about our future relationship. We tional commercial publishing, we are now RICHARD A SCHNEIDER is associate professor, have been in discussions with the Nature creating momentum for a new system that department of orthopaedic surgery, University Publishing Group (NPG) for more than 2 allows us to keep control of our own work of California, San Francisco, California. years—since threatening a potential UC and disseminate our research widely.

20 • Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1

Annual Meeting Reports Current State of Peer Review

Speakers: Jester addressed some of the issues sur- reviewers rewards for high-quality reviews, Anna Jester rounding the practice of keeping identi- for example, through CME credit; provid- Director of Sales & Marketing ties confidential when files are sent as ing the comments of the other reviewers; eJournal Press attachments—specifically how to find and training reviewers and giving them guid- remove additional information in a PDF ance; and using an open review process, Kirsten Patrick or Microsoft Word document that might in which the identities of the reviewers Clinical Reviews Editor reveal the identity of its author. She recom- and the authors are known to each other, BMJ mended using a decision letter and adding to increase the accountability of the com- the reviewer comments at the end of the ments (as BMJ does). Reporter: letter rather than sending the reviewer Patrick shared results of studies that Jeannine Botos comments as an attachment or sending the compared the quality of open and blinded Scientific Managing Editor manuscript file with tracked changes that reviews, mentioning that one main finding Journal of the National Cancer Institute, were incorporated by the reviewers. She of several randomized controlled trials was Oxford University Press provided an example of a decision-letter that recommendation decisions were simi- template in eJournal Press’s manuscript- lar in both systems. One study also found “Peer review is important, but it can be dif- tracking system containing the reviewer that reviewers could identify authors in ferent at different journals,” stated Anna comments following the body of the letter. double-blind reviews in 24–50% of cases. Jester, director of sales and marketing at She also presented examples of an elec- Kirsten discussed the BMJ open process eJournal Press, to begin the session. Jester tronic conflict-of-interest disclosure form of publishing original submitted manu- and Kirsten Patrick, editorials editor of for reviewers and mentioned that some scripts and reviewer comments online to BMJ, discussed three models of peer review: journals send reviewer comments through supplement revised accepted manuscripts single blind, double blind, and open. In the their production departments as metadata. and noted that BMJ enables fast online single-blind model, the authors’ identities Patrick shared some opinions regarding postpublication open review—that is, are known, but the reviewers’ identities are the pitfalls of the peer-review process and with the identities of the postpublication not revealed to the authors. In the double- provided some suggestions for improving reviewers—of BMJ-published manuscripts blind model, the authors’ and reviewers’ and maintaining the quality of reviews, through Rapid Response, BMJ’s online identities are not revealed to each other. such as scoring the reviews and giving correspondence.

Terminology in Science

So much talk has been making the rounds about open access (OA), and not all authors or editors are able to keep up with the multitude of articles that are published every day about it. It’s difficult to learn and remember all the new terms that keep popping up, so here is a brief run- down of some of the lingo you should know when you want to have a semi-intelligent conversation about OA:

• DOAJ = Directory of Open Access Journals (www.doaj.org) • ROAR = Registry of Open Access Repositories (roar.eprints.org) • ROARMAP = Registry of Open Access Repositories Mandatory Archiving Policies (roarmap.eprints.org) • Gratis OA = free (no cost) online access • Libre OA = Gratis OA with some additional usage rights • Gold Access = allows authors publishing in this type of journal to immediately access all of the journal’s articles on the publisher’s website • Green Access (with Self-Archiving) = allows archiving in a public or institutional repository • Delayed Access/Embargo = period of time (usually 6–12 months) after which a non-OA article or journal may then be provided as OA • Free Access (as opposed to Open Access) = reader exchanges personal information (as currency) by completing a registration in order to gain access to an article or journal • Access Tolls = subscription or pay-per-view; charge to cover publishing costs

If you have a more advanced understanding of OA, you might be interested in checking out a new resource that SPARC, PLOS, and OASPA are developing: a guide called HowOpenIsIt?, which serves as a one-stop shop for definitions, standardized terms, and mandates related to OA. (http:// www.plos.org/about/open-access/howopenisit/)

22 • Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 Annual Meeting Reports Did You Know? Government Issues That Affect Publishing

Speakers: medical, findings, if placed in the wrong The NSABB formed a working group Ori Lev hands, no matter how good the original on journal review policies. Through its Health Science Policy Analyst intention, could be used in negative ways. research, it found that few manuscripts National Institutes of Health In 2004, the US government established had been flagged as reporting potential the National Science Advisory Board for DURC. But in talking with editors, the David Carr Biosecurity (NSABB), which reports to the working group discovered that most edi- Policy Adviser secretary of health and human services and tors were not even aware of the policy or Wellcome Trust advises 15 departments and agencies. The that DURC was a problem. That resulted following extract is from the government in the NSABB recommendations of steps Mary D Ari policy defining DURC as follows:1 that journal editors and staff can take to Senior Scientist Life sciences research that, based on mitigate the risk of publishing a paper with Centers for Disease Control and current understanding, can be reason- potential DURC. The recommendations Prevention ably anticipated to provide knowledge, include adding a section in the instructions information, products, or technologies for authors and providing them with infor- Moderator: that could be directly misapplied to pose mation about DURC and allowing them Christine Casey a significant threat with broad poten- the opportunity to notify editors at the Deputy Editor tial consequences to public health and time of submission if any part of a paper Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report safety, agricultural crops and other plants, has potential for meeting DURC criteria. Centers for Disease Control and animals, the environment, materiel, or David Carr, policy adviser at the Prevention national security. Wellcome Trust, spoke from the perspective Lev went on to explain that the NSABB of a research funding agency. In line with Reporter: was charged with recommending strategies the NSABB recommendations that Lev Lindsey Buscher for mitigating the potential for misuses of discussed, Carr said that, as a funder, the Managing Editor DURC. The NSABB established seven Wellcome Trust has an obligation to promote Allen Press, Inc categories of experiments for which such self-governance in the scientific community. strategies should be considered:1 To meet that obligation, the Biotechnology You read and hear in the news about the Does the experiment and Biological Sciences Research Council, government issuing new regulations or Medical Research Council, and Wellcome passing bills about any number of things • Enhance harmful consequences of a Trust devised a joint policy in 2005 that that pertain to a million different facets biologic agent or toxin? established a guideline specifying that a of life, but the questions constantly in the • Disrupt immunity or effectiveness of an checkbox be added to application forms back of your mind—whether you’re aware immunization without clinical or agri- that authors must check if anything in their of it or not—are how does this affect me, cultural justification? research may meet the DURC criteria. The and, as a professional in the publishing • Confer on a biologic agent or toxin resis- joint policy also established a guideline for industry, why should I care? Christine tance to clinically or agriculturally useful referees that explicitly mentions research Casey led a well-organized and informative prophylactic or therapeutic interven- misuse as an issue to consider and a guide- panel that answered those questions. tions against that agent or toxin or facili- line for funding committees that spells out The primary government issue that tate their ability to evade detection? the process for assessing cases that raise con- should currently interest those of us in • Increase the stability of, the transmis- cern. Carr noted that in his experience most the publishing world, especially in the life- sibility of, or the ability to disseminate authors applying for funding and questioned sciences field, is something called dual-use a biologic agent or toxin? about potential DURC respond forthright- research of concern (DURC). Ori Lev • Alter the host range or tropism of a ly, and only a few cases have been flagged; introduced session attendees to this topic biologic agent or toxin? nothing has been of such great concern that and explained that DURC refers to the pos- • Enhance the susceptibility of a host it affected a decision to fund a project. sibility that a piece of research could have population to a biologic agent or toxin? more than one application; the problem is • Generate or reconstitute an eradicated that scientific, and more often specifically or extinct biologic agent or toxin? (continued on page 24)

Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 • 23 Annual Meeting Reports Libraries and Librarians: A Changing Landscape

Speakers: With ever-increasing quantities of infor- Libraries of Medicine, MidContinental Bart Ragon mation and research, how will universi- Region and the NLM Training Center. Associate Director for Knowledge ties keep up with the “data deluge” and Shipman addressed the shift of librar- Integration, Research, and Technology maintain data in ways that keep them both ies from repositories for stored informa- University of Virginia Claude Moore manageable and accessible to researchers? tion to vibrant centers of discovery and Health Sciences Library Bart Ragon, associate director for knowl- knowledge creation in her presentation edge integration, research, and technol- titled “Librarians Supporting Research”. Jean Shipman ogy at the University of Virginia’s Claude At the University of Utah, the adminis- Director Moore Health Sciences Library, discussed trative offices associated with the univer- University of Utah Spencer S Eccles unique challenges presented by budget cuts sity’s Clinical and Translational Science Health Sciences Library and reduced funding opportunities as the Award and a biomedical-device innova- library strives to meet needs for collabora- tion center are housed in the library. Reporter: tive networked science. Concepts of data The library leads the university’s health- Judith A Connors storage, data curation, the data life cycle, sciences interprofessional education ini- Managing Editor intellectual property, translational science, tiatives, and an interprofessional student Drug Information Association and data sharing are affecting how science organization is also headquartered in the is conducted. Ragon discussed how librar- library. Librarians support all those occu- Those in publishing are not the only ones ies are embracing changes and adjusting pants by conducting traditional literature experiencing drastic changes in job respon- service models to meet the needs of highly reviews and offering new services, includ- sibilities and industry due to technology networked and technology-savvy patron ing data management, presentation-skill and economic issues. The session titled groups. He addressed the look of libraries development, and training on federated “Libraries and Librarians: A Changing in the future and explored the evolving clinical database searching and statistical Landscape” explored the changing roles of nature of science, university responses, and database design. Libraries are changing libraries in the support of researchers and new roles for libraries. their focus from organizing materials to knowledge sharing. It also addressed ways Jean Shipman, director, University of organizing people, inasmuch as librarians for librarians, publishers, and editors to Utah Spencer S Eccles Health Sciences are members of many mission-based teams work together to improve scholarly com- Library, also serves as principal inves- to enable the effective use of high-quality, munications. tigator for the National Network of relevant, and timely information. continued (from page 23)

Mary Ari echoed Carr’s assertion that of data-sharing Web sites. It has discovered their research is protected, and they do in the big picture of day-to-day processes, that using such Web sites as ArrayExpress, not want to be responsible for publishing few articles produced by the Centers for GenBank, and Dryad increases use of and anything that violates the DURC policy Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) interest in the journal and increases trans- and could lead to a national-security or have been flagged for DURC, but CDC parency and credibility. Such challenges as public-health threat; but they want access to has a clearance process that is overseen by choosing which Web site to use, protect- other researchers’ data that may help them the Institutional Biosecurity Board and fol- ing data to avoid DURC, and ensuring to further research in their fields. All arms lows the NSABB guidelines. Ari also said confidentiality are involved in requiring of academic and scientific publishing must that CDC now requires all its scientists to authors to share data, but the incentives continue to have joint policy-making discus- receive Web-based DURC training. CDC and rewards, such as receiving grant fund- sions about DURC and data sharing. uses an electronic system to track compli- ing, tend to outweigh the burdens. ance, which requires authors to obtain a The take-home message: For data shar- Reference DURC ID number from the system and to ing to work at its optimal level, everyone 1. United States Government Policy for Oversight include it in the submitted manuscript. needs to be on board—editors, authors, of Life Sciences Dual Use Research of Concern. Ari discussed the importance of data funders, and publishers. Funders would like Accessed 2012. http://oba.od.nih.gov/oba/biose- sharing. Although it is not a requirement in to see more discipline-specific databases curity/pdf/united_states_government_policy_for_ the United States, CDC was an early user available. Authors want to make sure that oversight_of_durc_final_version_032812.pdf

24 • Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 Annual Meeting Reports Helping Novice and International Authors to Publish

Speakers: Thomas M Annesley began by saying that mentioned possibly developing tools to Thomas M Annesley even in the United States many research- bridge cultural gaps regarding publication Professor of Clinical Chemistry ers are non-native speakers of English. He norms and ethics. University of Michigan noted that cultures differ in norms regard- Helen B Atkins spoke from the per- ing authorship criteria, plagiarism, dupli- spective of the American Association for Helen B Atkins cate publication, and response to editor Cancer Research (AACR), which pub- Editorial Director and reviewer comments. He observed that lishes seven peer-reviewed journals. She American Association for Cancer although formal courses and workshops are said that the submitting authors of many of Research the best way to help scientists improve their the papers received are outside the United writing, they are not always available. States. She then described measures that Moderator: “What can journals and editors do?” AACR has taken to facilitate publication Sue Silver Annesley asked. His answers: make authors by novice and international authors. For Editor-in-Chief aware of available resources, create and example, Atkins reported that since 2009, Frontiers in Ecology and the disseminate resource materials, and col- AACR has included in its annual meeting Environment laborate to make resources available. a professional-advancement lecture series Annesley identified a variety of resourc- featuring presentations by journal editors Reporter: es, including materials available online and publication staff. Intended mainly for Barbara Gastel through OARE (Online Access to Research early-career researchers, the presentations Professor, Department of Veterinary in the Environment), HINARI, AGORA address such topics as journal selection, Integrative Biosciences (Access to Global Online Research in authorship determination, manuscript orga- Texas A&M University Agriculture), ARDI (Access to Research nization and writing, the review process, for Development and Innovation), and response to reviewer comments, and publi- Many authors of scientific papers are new AuthorAID. With regard to creating and cation ethics. The presentations sometimes to scientific publishing, are non-native disseminating resource materials, Annesley draw 300–400 attendees. speakers of English, or both. Speakers at noted the article series that constitutes the Atkins mentioned that the AACR pub- this session discussed initiatives to guide Clinical Chemistry Guide to Scientific Writing lication portal includes an author-services such authors. and reported that the series had been trans- center with links to information on such Introducing the session, Sue Silver lated into Chinese and Spanish and that subjects as journal scope, editorial poli- described workshops that she and fel- translations into Russian and Arabic were cies, and language-editing services. She low science editor Philippa Benson have under way. also said that the instructions for authors given since 2007 in China, which now is With regard to collaborating to make of all AACR journals had been standard- second only to the United States in num- resources available, Annesley listed tasks ized, with consistent core policies and ber of papers published per year. Silver for journals and editors to consider, includ- requirements, to facilitate compliance by emphasized that the workshops, which ing assembling and publicizing an agreed- authors. In closing, she noted three other last 2 days, address not how to write on set of online resources, supporting con- measures taken that can help novice and papers but what happens once a paper ferences on scientific writing and publica- international authors: appointing interna- is submitted. She and Benson have also tion, and developing joint projects to edu- tional editors and editorial-board members, written a book titled What Editors Want: cate authors about publication standards distributing information about the jour- An Author’s Guide to Scientific Journal and ethics. He also raised the possibility nals at international meetings, and having Publishing (University of Chicago Press, of constructing standardized sections or editorial staff provide excellent customer 2012). wording for instructions for authors, and service.

Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 • 25 Annual Meeting Reports Journals Production: Workflow, Efficiency, and Metrics

Speakers: the case of the American Society of Civil which can range from under 1,000 to Dana Compton Engineers (ASCE); and 10 technical jour- more than 6,000 pages annually. AMS Production Manager nals, 26,000 pages published, and more also maintains separate in-house copyedit- Proceedings of the National Academy than 100 issues released annually (semi- ing and technical-editing staffs; this allows of Sciences of the United States of monthly to quarterly) in the case of the for increased scrutiny of each paper but America American Meteorological Society (AMS). requires a larger staff than most STM pub- Different fundamental workflows are lishers to adjust for the number of journals Jackie Perry needed for publishers with such a vari- and pages published. The print schedule Editorial Manager ety of throughput. Jackie Perry discussed for PNAS is fixed; author proof return Society for Neuroscience the need for Neuroscience to transition dictates the online production schedule. from an “assembly-line” workflow, in Processing and production are handled by Angela Cochran which rapid training and production were two teams of six people each. Director, Journals outweighed by the boredom and burn- Although the contrasting workflows The American Society of Civil Engineers out associated with that approach, to a described show clearly that there is no “people-designed” workflow, which allows single overarching approach to optimal Moderator: a unified team approach consisting of production for publishers of different kinds, Michael Friedman interested and integrated staff that have what was most striking in listening to the Journals Manager and Technical Editor much broader knowledge of all aspects of speakers were the similarities in reporting, American Meteorological Society the workflow. ASCE, with its many jour- metrics, and relationships with vendors nals, has opted to forge a single workflow that undergird the production workflow Reporter: that covers all but one of its journals; of all four publishers. It is those common Ken Heideman this requires rigid schedules and lots of characteristics that appear to drive the Director of Publications planning but yields maximum efficiency. success of the publishers and that other American Meteorological Society ASCE has the same month-by-month STM publishers would do well to emulate. schedule for each journal, staggered due They include comprehensive reporting and The primary goal of this session was to help dates, and standardized deliverables (for scheduling (knowing where each paper is journal publishers of all kinds to optimize example, one due date and one mailing at any given moment), regular meetings their operations. The group of speakers date). The exception or outlier is a quar- with staff and vendors to make sure that provided a microcosm of the challenges terly journal that has its own scheduling expectations are clear and that produc- faced by different publishers throughout paradigm and that, according to Angela tion is on track, robust metrics to measure the STM community. In terms of the size of Cochran, is an enormous time sink, tak- performance throughout the production their operations, publications varied from ing up a disproportionate amount of time. process, and adherence to predetermined one weekly journal and 18,500 pages pub- Cochran strongly recommends against budgets. lished annually in the case of Neuroscience; having titles that are outliers with respect The session was engaging, and the take- to one weekly journal and 22,000 pages in to workflow. The ASCE approach is in away message was that although publishers the case of the Proceedings of the National distinct contrast with that of AMS, in can use any number of workflow designs Academy of Sciences of the United States of which production scheduling and resource effectively, core elements are common to America (PNAS); 33 technical journals, allocation are customized to the demands all successful publishers in producing their 22,000 pages, and 220 issues per year in associated with each individual journal, journals.

26 • Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 Annual Meeting Reports Remote Office: Experiments in Working Offsite

Speakers: Robert G Sumner, editorial coordinator a remote-only worker. The management Robert G Sumner of Clinical Chemistry, began by discussing strategy behind ROWE focuses on results. Editorial Coordinator the “cloud” in his presentation, “Life Above Employees have control over their time, but American Association for Clinical the Clouds”. The American Association for each job has concrete and measurable goals Chemistry Clinical Chemistry (AACC) has adopted in addition to expected results. Performance cloud servers, which allow office workers to is measured by results, not by time or physi- Glenn Landis log in from any computer or smartphone. cal presence. Employees can start late, leave Managing Editor Employees’ personal desktops and all saved early, and work in the office or at home. Journal of Clinical Oncology information are on a server. Thus, all work Landis explained that the advantages of is mobile, and nearly all work requires “going ROWE” are an improved work–life Reporter: Internet connectivity. balance, improved team capacity and effi- George H Kendall The drawbacks to the cloud lie in poten- ciency, improved morale, and optimization Managing Editor tial connectivity problems and bugs, such of the latest technology. Another ROWE Anesthesiology as printer and copy-and-paste issues, for plus: It is a great way to attract and retain which the help of IT staff is needed. The top talent. But how do you measure results This session focused on new opportuni- AACC servers are no longer housed at the in ROWE? Management must be clear ties in publishing that allow publishing society but are maintained by Citrix (some about goals and is expected to monitor and professionals to work remotely. Because might see this as a potential problem). determine whether goals and expectations our industry has adopted such tools as However, as Sumner pointed out, working of results are being met. It is also critical to online peer-review and tracking systems, from the cloud is more cost efficient than monitor staff workloads. content is for the most part online, and housing servers on site. In addition, the lat- Meetings are an interesting aspect of editorial-board members are usually situ- est software is updated in the cloud, so users ROWE. Landis noted that all meetings ated around the country and the world. do not need to install it on their devices. are optional. The meeting planner has to Thus, it seems logical that the important Glenn Landis, managing editor of the be descriptive about the meeting topic; business of journal editing, peer-review Journal of Clinical Oncology, published by for example, the planner must note who management, and even oversight of an the American Society of Clinical Oncology is required and who is optional and must editorial staff can also be managed from (ASCO), discussed ASCO’s experi- provide an agenda. All meetings are con- remote locations rather than a centralized ment with ROWE, Results Only Work ducted via telephone and Webex. Landis office. To be sure, remote offices require Environment. ASCO began using ROWE observed that since ASCO began ROWE, new tools and technology and a new style in the middle of May 2011, and it has the journal has had fewer meetings; some of management; this session focused on been successful to date. Landis explained may consider this an added benefit of these requirements. that ROWE has nothing to do with being adopting ROWE!

Think Now about Registering for the CSE Publication Certificate Program

The launch of CSE’s certificate program in scholarly publication management in spring 2012 was well received. Members accepted into the program include Ashley Apple, Mary Billingsley, Jessica Brabrant, Christine Casey, Judith Connors, Bridget Egan, Shirin Heidari, Jennifer Jongsma, Nevzat Karabulut, Lee Ann Kleffman, Roger Ladouceur, Jackie Malling, Angel Marsh, Julie Methot, Jon Munn, Sandra Page-Cook, Virginia Ramsey, Kavitha Reinhold, Sasha Ruiz, Rebecca Simmons, Morgan Sorenson, Julie Strain, Anne Sundermann, Ana Traversa, and Laura Ziehm. Any CSE member may apply for the program; accepted applicants will receive a 20% discount on related activities (Webinars, conferences, and short courses). Over a 3-year period, participants must attend two CSE annual conferences, including four sessions at each meeting that are identified on the program as part of the “track”; three CSE Webinars (one may be recorded); and two CSE short courses (choice of Publication Management, Journal Editors, Publication Metrics, or Publication Ethics). Each participant will propose an independent research project, prepare a poster presentation for an annual meeting, and submit a research paper based on the project to Science Editor. Go to www.councilscienceeditors.org to complete an application.

Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 • 27 Annual Meeting Reports CSE–COPE Joint Session: Learning to Do the Right Thing—Educating Editors, Authors, and Reviewers in Publication Ethics

Speakers: grown to more than 7000 members, repre- view.html includes an episode on ethical Virginia Barbour senting a wide array of academic fields. considerations for authors and reviewers. Chief Editor, PLOS As a service organization, COPE has The series is a must-see for scientists who Chair, Committee on Publication Ethics taken on the roles of educating, guiding, are considering publishing for the first time and supporting and uses various approaches and for seasoned researchers alike. Sarah Tegen and resources to accomplish these goals. A Christina N Bennett rounded out the Director, Editorial Office Operations visit to the COPE Web site at http://publi- presentations by describing the process American Chemical Society cationethics.org and a click on “Resources” approach that the American Physiological offers numerous tools, including the COPE Society (APS) follows to communicate Christina N Bennett guidelines, case studies, flowcharts for fea- concerns to authors when ethical viola- Publications Ethics Manager sible action related to various ethical situ- tions are detected. In addition to the American Physiological Society ations, information on seminars and forum description of sample communications to meetings, and e-Learning resources. The authors regarding potential transgressions Moderator: News & Opinion section links to a variety in textual content, of special interest were Angela Cochran of related stories and media sites to keep the information and insights related to Director, Journals members informed. imagery and acceptable and unacceptable American Society of Civil Engineers Following Barbour’s introduction, practices that authors often follow with Sarah Tegen’s presentation was a seamless graphics. Bennett noted that authors have Reporter: segue to describe how one publisher, the sophisticated tools at their disposal and Leslie A Walker American Chemical Society (ACS), is often a high level of expertise with them, Manager, Journals Editing actively addressing concerns about publi- but do not realize that image manipulation American Chemical Society cation ethics and providing guidance to may be inappropriate and violate publish- authors and scientific editors. Tegen’s pre- ers’ ethical guidelines for data presenta- If you are reading this summary, you are sentation, “Teaching Our Constituents to tion. APS and other publishers are now quite possibly wrestling with the hot-but- Do the Right Thing”, summarized inno- including detailed information on image ton topic of publication ethics. This ses- vative ways in which ACS approaches presentation and acceptable practices sion was a strong kickoff to the variety of publication-ethics education for editors, regarding graphical elements with their excellent concurrent sessions at the CSE authors, and reviewers, using opportuni- information for authors. Bennett further annual meeting and pointed to a wealth ties to meet in face-to-face settings and to noted that publishers are evaluating sub- of information and resources. The three reach audiences around the world through mitted images for compliance with stated speakers are experienced in publication technology-based avenues. One of the most guidelines and policies. ethics and how to promote understanding popular avenues is the outreach program The Council of Science Editors remains of ethical expectations and behaviors. “ACS on Campus”. Each ACS on Campus a key support resource for publishers, Virginia (“Ginny”) Barbour opened event, hosted in a university setting, affords researchers, and other people and organiza- the session with a brief history of the opportunities for personal interaction with tions that are trying to navigate the chang- Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) ACS editors and staff who bring the mes- ing and competitive academic landscape and its mission, introducing herself as the sage of publication ethics directly to stu- while avoiding ethical roadblocks along the current chair of the committee. COPE dents, researchers, and authors. If ACS way. The newly updated CSE White Paper formed in 1997 as an organization focused is not on your campus, the video series on Promoting Integrity in Scientific Journal on ethical issues touching researchers and “Publishing Your Research 101” at http:// Publications (2012 update) is available online publishers of biomedical content and has pubs.acs.org/page/publish-research/over- at www.councilscienceeditors.org.

28 • Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 Features Correcting the Literature: Committee on Publication Ethics Seminar Highlights

May Piotrowski Jasny presented three kinds of retractions: reviewed as the main article, an increase in good—retractions are initiated or agreed interdisciplinary papers, miscommunica- The 2012 Committee on Publication Ethics upon by the original authors; bad—one or tion, and pressures on scientists associated (COPE) North American Seminar, held more authors refuse to sign the retraction; with grants, prestige, and public attention. on 19 October at the Bechtel Conference and ugly—authors refuse to accept findings Jasny identified risk factors that can help Center in Reston, Virginia, focused on of an institutional investigation. journals to flag papers that should receive the importance of correcting the scientific The retraction process takes staff time a higher level of scrutiny: the multidis- literature. Speakers and members of the and journals’ resources. What can journals ciplinary nature of the work, results that COPE Council discussed ways to handle do to help prevent retractions? At Science, seem too good to be true, involvement of expressions of concern, corrections, and all authors are required to be respon- multiple laboratories in different countries, retractions. The seminar was attended by sible for the submitted work. According to and fast turnaround in data preparation. more than 50 science, technical, and medi- Jasny, the requirement comes at a time of Jasny mentioned an article by Casadevall cal editors in various roles and disciplines. increased multidisciplinary papers, which et al in the Proceedings of the National makes it more difficult for journals to Academy of Sciences of the United States of Retraction of Scientific Papers: verify author responsibility. As a result, America that reported that of the 2,047 The Science Experience Science asks for specific author activity biomedical and life-science research arti- COPE defines retraction as a mechanism on the basis of the level of participation cles indexed by PubMed as having been for correcting the literature and alerting measured by percentages.1 In addition, retracted on 3 May 2012, only 21.3% were readers to publications that contain flawed senior authors are asked to affirm that they attributable to error. Meanwhile, 67.4% of or erroneous data. Barbara Jasny, deputy have personally checked all original data. retractions were attributable to misconduct editor of Science, shared her journal’s best Science’s authorship policy follows author- (43.4%), duplicate publication (14.2%), or practices in dealing with retractions. Her ship requirements presented in On Being plagiarism (9.8%).5 first piece of advice: Rapid online retrac- a Scientist: A Guide to Responsible Conduct Jasny acknowledged the complications tion can do harm. Jasny recommended in Research, third edition, published by the associated with retractions but emphasized that journals exercise caution and ensure National Academy of Sciences.2 that problem papers are in the minority. that a fair process has been implemented The Hwang et al papers that Science pub- before issuing retraction notices and edito- lished in 2004 and 2005 and later retracted CrossMark: There Is No Final rial expressions of concern. She empha- in 20063 prompted the journal to revisit Version sized that each case is different; science some of its policies.4 Since the Hwang et CrossRef’s Carol Meyer provided updates editors must evaluate each scenario care- al retraction, Science has implemented the on how CrossMark is helping journals fully to ensure that appropriate steps are following procedures: Alerts all coauthors to deal with the increasing incidence of taken. For example, if a retraction request when an author submits a paper with retractions.6 Readers need to know when were prompted by an anonymous whistle- their names on it; requires all authors of scientific literature changes, said Meyer. blower, it is important to ask about the accepted manuscripts to affirm and explain She showed five samples of actual jour- whistleblower’s motivations. According to their contribution to the manuscript and nals and asked attendees to try to identify Jasny, when Science receives a credible any conflict-of-interest disclosures; sends quickly whether any of the articles were report from an anonymous whistleblower, submitted figures through a digital image corrected or retracted. Most of the samples it requests identification of the person check; and asks authors to ensure that all were clearly marked; a couple required a making the report with the understand- data necessary to understand and extend few extra seconds to identify whether they ing that he or she will remain anonymous conclusions of the manuscript are included were linked to a correction or retraction. throughout the retraction process. so that they are available to readers. Science Meyer noted that although the Internet does not allow references to unpublished helps to disseminate scientific literature, data; all references and data must be avail- search results can include republished MAY PIOTROWSKI is editorial manager, able at the time of publication. PDFs, outdated press releases, and other Proceedings of the National Academy of Jasny attributes the rise in retractions unidentified sources, which leave readers Sciences of the United States of America, to large data sets, the possibility that sup- in the dark as to whether a published work Washington, DC. plemental material is not as rigorously has been corrected or retracted.

Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 • 29 Features continued

To help in identifying corrected and A journal’s objectivity and due process are reason for it and should avoid defamatory retracted literature, a CrossMark ribbon also being questioned. He emphasized the language, Pearson said. In handling retrac- logo is added to documents published by need for consistent, well-communicated tions, it is important for journal editors to participating CrossRef members. By click- journal policies. move cautiously but decisively. The retrac- ing on the CrossMark ribbon, a reader can Legal correspondence that involves alle- tion process can put a strain on smaller identify whether the literature is current gations or refutations is typically related specialty journals that have small staff or is linked to a published correction or to fraud, plagiarism, unreported conflict and limited resources, Pierson said. Editors retraction. of interest, or submission-process miscon- should turn to their trusted experts and not CrossMark is available to all CrossRef duct. Seeley advised treating such legal make decisions in isolation. members, and participation is optional. correspondence like any other complaint: Participants must maintain their content, evaluate the alleged act to determine References keep CrossMark metadata up to date, and whether it violates publication ethics and 1. Science/AAAS authorship form and statement adhere to CrossMark logo display guide- whether it matches the journal’s policy, of conflicts of interest. Science. 2012; http:// lines. Seeley added. He suggested reaching out www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/contribinfo/prep/ to trusted experts to help in evaluating the coi.pdf. Legal Issues in Corrections, allegations. 2. Committee on Science, Engineering, and Retractions, and Expressions Seeley also noted that before editors of Public Policy. On being a scientist: a guide to of Concern journals consider reporting the violation to responsible conduct in research. The National Mark Seeley, senior vice president and an author’s institution, they should provide Academies Press. 2009; http://www.nap.edu/cata- general counsel of Elsevier, offered advice an opportunity for an alleged wrong-doer log.php?record_id=12192. on how journals should handle legal corre- to explain and defend against allegations. 3. Special online collection: Hwang et al. controver- spondence, which he said often deals with The courts are not unsympathetic but sy–committee report, response, and background. patent issues, defamation, or allegation of are reluctant to intervene in these mat- Science. http://www.sciencemag.org/site/feature/ ethics violations. For someone to take the ters because they recognize that there are misc/webfeat/hwang2005/ time to have a lawyer write to a journal is other forums for them. “The courts seem 4. Vogel G. Picking up the pieces after Hwang. Science. superfluous, said Seeley, in that anyone can to respect the scientific process and are not 2006;312(5773):516–517. http://www.sciencemag. contact a journal or institution directly to overawed by legalistic complaints,” he said. org/content/312/5773/516.full?sid=6d792ee0- air concerns. 2c02-44bc-b746-07ac52812a35. According to Seeley, patent issues are Summary 5. Fang FC, Steen G, Casadevall A. Misconduct not for journals to solve. Inventor–authors Closing remarks by COPE Council mem- accounts for the majority of retracted scientific have a short window to file their patents, bers Geri Pearson and Charon Pierson publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012 (published so they are not always mindful of the legal underscored the value of well-written ahead of print Oct 1, 2012); http://www.pnas. requirements. Publication of a paper is con- retraction statements. They recommended org/content/early/2012/09/27/1212247109.full. sidered public disclosure. making sure that statements are linked to pdf+html. A journal’s primary defense against defa- manuscripts, clearly identified, published 6. Van Noorden R. Science publishing: the trouble mation is clearly stated policies, Seeley promptly, and freely available. with retractions. 2011 Nature. ;478:26ñ28. http:// said. In defamation cases, a researcher’s or A retraction statement should clearly www.nature.com/news/2011/111005/full/478026a. academician’s reputation may be at stake. note who issued the retraction and the html.

30 • Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 Departments Member Profile: Jocalyn Clark

Stacy Christiansen believes PLOS has been most influential in articles about ghostwriting, the role of She may have what she calls a “traditional the food industry in global health, and academic health-sciences background”, but access to clean water as a basic human Jocalyn Clark has anything but a tra- right. Jocalyn wrote one of the first pieces ditional health-sciences job. She is the published in a medical journal that exam- senior magazine editor for PLOS Medicine, ined the use of rape as a tool of war. She a peer-reviewed, weekly, open-access medi- believes that PLOS Medicine is uniquely cal journal. situated to provide a forum for critical Jocalyn started her career as an under- issues in global health both because of its graduate biochemistry major, completed open-access license and because it does both a master’s degree and a doctorate in not take money from the pharmaceuti- public health, and landed a fellowship with cal industry for advertising. Jocalyn notes the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. that her job requires travel, so she gets to Her interests included research on the use meet “amazing, dedicated people who are of health services by women who had addressing health inequities”. been sexually assaulted and gender-equity When asked about the open-access and public-health issues. In addition, she model for a medical journal, Jocalyn Jocalyn Clark researched, wrote, and edited a fair amount explains that open access allows the world’s on peer review, and this led her to attend scientific and medical research to be a the International Congress on Peer Review public resource. She notes two important In addition to her work at PLOS Medicine and Biomedical Publication in 2001. There issues: removal of barriers to accessing the and as a professor of medicine at the she met Richard Smith, editor of BMJ, who literature and author retention of copy- University of Toronto, Jocalyn stays active encouraged her to apply for a fellowship at right. She notes that although wealthier with yoga, Pilates, and running (including BMJ. Jocalyn said that she “really enjoyed countries do not see barriers to content a few marathons). She is an avid sports fan the 1-year BMJ fellowship” and was later access (“many of us in wealthy countries and could see herself as a yoga and Pilates hired full-time as an assistant editor. can use our library’s institutional subscrip- trainer if she were not in biomedical pub- In 2008, Jocalyn moved back to tions to read journals”), this is not the case lication. Canada, when she joined PLOS Medicine. for most people, especially in develop- But that is where she wants to be: At In her current role, Jocalyn oversees the ing countries. She says that authors tend PLOS Medicine, Jocalyn is able to pursue magazine (front) portion of the journal, not to understand the copyright issues her passions in global and public health. including commissioning pieces and edit- involved in publishing when they trans- “I want to travel and experience other cul- ing content for weekly publication. She fer copyright to publishers who then sell tures, especially regarding public health.” access to their content, and that research She feels that her current position allows funded by public dollars—and peer review her to make contributions in public health, STACY CHRISTIANSEN is director of manu- conducted by academics—should be free and this is the most important work that script editing at JAMA, Chicago, Illinois. and in the public domain. she has done in her career.

Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 • 31 Marginalia Selected Articles and Posts of Interest to Publishing Professionals

Barbara Meyers Ford importance to all publishers. “Links are a Posted by Heather Morrison on 23 critical and extremely regular part of your November 2012 on the The Imaginary The Benefits of Rejection content and your business. You want your Journal of Poetic Economics blog (http:// by Ruth Williams readers to click on them so that they can poeticeconomics.blogspot.com/2012/11/ understand more clearly what you do and cc-by-reflects-small-subset-of-open. A survey of the pre-publication histories what you offer. Link wording must entice.” html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_ of papers reveals that manuscripts that are She lists and explains in detail what you medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3 rejected then resubmitted are cited more should work on to influence readers into an A+blogspot%2FAWUpr+%28The+Imagi often. A rejection notice never feels good, active response to your content. Her main nary+Journal+of+Poetic+Economics%29) but new research suggests an upside to this items to remember: routine disappointment in the scientific Can Drug Research Still be community. Chances are, if a researcher • Use the most effective phrasing pos- Trusted? Washington Post resubmits her work to another journal, it sible Exclusive will be cited more often, according to an • Have links that lead to specific things Arguably the most prestigious medical jour- extensive pre-publication survey published • Where to place the link in your con- nal in the world, the New England Journal on 11 October in Science. The finding tent? At the end of a sentence of Medicine regularly features articles over should not only reassure frustrated scien- which pharmaceutical companies and their tists, but also persuade journal editors to Posted on 13 October 2012 to Compukol employees can exert significant influence, a perhaps reduce rejection rates and instead Connection (http://www.compukol.com/ Washington Post investigation has found. encourage revision. blog/effective-wording-for-your-backlinks/) Over a year-long period ending in August, about two-thirds of the articles on CC-BY Reflects a Small Subset new drugs published in the journal were co- of Open Access. Claims of written by employees of the companies that ‘Emerging Consensus’ on CC-BY made the drugs, a Post analysis has found. are Premature. The journal’s reliance on industry research, The Open Access Scholarly Publishers’ despite notable examples of potentially Association’s “Why CC-BY page” http:// lethal bias, reflects the ability of pharma- oaspa.org/why-cc-by/ refers to an “emerg- ceutical companies to shape science and ing consensus on the adoption of CC-BY.” influence what doctors prescribe for their Photo: WIKIMEDIA COMMONS OASPA refers to an “emerging consensus” patients. that CC-BY is the best license for open Posted 11 October 2012 on THE access. I argue that the evidence suggests Posted Saturday, 24 November 2012 Read SCIENTIST Web site(http://www.google. that CC-BY is a peripheral phenomenon more at: http://www.washingtonpost.com/ com/search?q=The+Scientist&rls=com. and very far from consensus. From Peter business/economy/as-drug-industrys-influ- microsoft:en-us&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8 Suber’s SPARC Open Access Newsletter, ence-over-research-grows-so-does-the- &startIndex=&startPage=1&rlz=1I7AUR June 2012—in brief only 11% of the jour- potential-for-bias/2012/11/24/bb64d596- U_enUS499) nals listed in DOAJ use CC-BY, and outside 1264-11e2-be82-c3411b7680a9_story.html of full gold OA publishing as illustrated by Effective Wording for Your the journals in DOAJ, the proportion of Backlinks OA that is CC-BY is lower still. http:// by Carolyn Cohn www.doaj.org/?func=sealedJournals Cohn is clear and concise, yet compre- hensive, in her treatment of this topic of

32 • Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 CSE News The CSE Short Courses: A Great Reason to Arrive Early in Montreal

Nancy Devaux Director, CSE Short Courses

experienced managers. The keynote ses- sion of the course will be “Managing to Lead”. Further sessions will address man- is designed as an introduction for newly aging communications and people; work- appointed editors and a refresher for expe- ing with publishing partners; organizing rienced colleagues, providing a comprehen- workflow; working with editors-in-chief, sive survey of the roles and responsibilities associate editors, editorial boards, authors, of editors of scientific journals. There will and reviewers; and perspectives of editors, be formal presentations on the fundamen- authors, and reviewers. Discussions will We are excited to offer four engaging short tals of editing, the editorial board, journal include current controversies in ethics, courses immediately before the 2013 CSE management, publishing ethics, operating conflicts of interest, and open access. annual meeting in Montreal. These short business practices, and considerations for courses provide a unique opportunity to learn introducing a new publication or improving Short Course on Journal Metrics about relevant publishing topics from expe- an established one. The group discussions Saturday, 4 May—Journal managers have rienced leaders in the scientific and medical are a key feature of the course: they provide a plethora of data at their fingertips. The journal community and are conveniently an opportunity for detailed consideration of Short Course on Journal Metrics, led by held at the same venue as the conference. decision making, manuscript improvement, Angela Cochran (journals director at the The courses are specifically designed by and allegations of inappropriate behavior, and, American Society of Civil Engineers), will for editorial and publications professionals most important, the issues that participants explore the kinds of data available to jour- just like you. Attendees are encouraged to bring to the table. nal managers and why it is important to bring questions for discussion in a room full of like-minded people. Come to Montreal a Short Course for Publication day or two before the annual conference to Management learn from and with other journal editors, Saturday, 4 May—Course Coordinator managing editors, manuscript editors, and Amy McPherson (managing editor of the publishing leaders. Increase the value of American Journal of Botany) and her expe- your CSE experience—expand your knowl- rienced faculty will present and reinforce edge and skill set while sharing with your efficient and effective methods of managing publishing colleagues. a journal. This 1-day course will address the wide-ranging role of managing editors and Short Course for Journal Editors publication managers and the challenges Friday, 3 May, and Saturday, 4 May— that they face daily. This is the basic course William Lanier, MD (editor-in-chief of Mayo for those new to journal management; Clinic Proceedings) will again coordinate this it is also designed to fill in the gaps and 2-day Short Course for Journal Editors. It provide new ideas and perspectives for (continued on page 35)

Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 • 33 CSE News “Communicate Science Effectively: The World Depends on It!”—Making It Happen at the 2013 Annual Meeting in Montreal

Michael Friedman and Tony Alves • On Monday, 6 May, award-winning New • “Scientific Podcasts: Why, When, Cochairs, 2013 Program Committee York Times blogger Andrew Revkin will What, Everywhere”, moderated by deliver the plenary address. Mr. Revkin Anna Jester, of eJournal Press. In the world today, communicating sci- is the senior fellow for environmen- ence effectively is not just an option—it tal understanding at Pace University’s Other sessions will be looking ahead is arguably one of the most important pre- Academy for Applied Environmental to how the communication of science is requisites for constructively addressing fun- Studies and writes the award-winning evolving and how publishers need to adapt damental problems that the planet we live Dot Earth blog for the Op-Ed section and change: on and society as a whole are facing. CSE of The New York Times. He also serves members are uniquely positioned to be key on the Advisory Board for the Center • “Evolution of the Article”, moderated contributors in identifying relevant issues, for Communicating Science at Stony by Barbara Meyers Ford, of Meyers addressing them, and working toward solu- Brook University. An author of sev- Consulting Services. tions. eral books, he has written extensively on • “New Standards in Science Publishing”, In recognition of those important roles, communication and the environment moderated by Tony Alves, of Aries the theme of the 2013 CSE annual meeting and speaks to varied audiences around Corporation. is “Communicate Science Effectively: The the world about the power of the Web • “Copy and Technical Editing in the World Depends On It!” The meeting will to foster progress on a finite planet. 21st Century: Addressing Changing be held at the Fairmont Queen Elizabeth He will speak on “The New Science Conventions and Technology: Reader Hotel in Montreal, Quebec, Canada, on Communication Climate”, examining Needs and Preferences”, moderated 5–6 May 2013, immediately after the pre- the very rough path from research lab to by Ingrid Philibert, of the Journal of meeting short courses on 3–4 May. Two journal to the public and policymakers, Graduate Medical Education. outstanding keynote addresses will connect and exploring issues and opportunities as to the topic: conventional science journalism shrinks CSE’s continuing focus on ethics, dealing and other means of exploring science with problematic editorial situations, and • On Sunday, 5 May, the keynote speaker online grows. advances in technology will also be evident will be Jeffrey Drazen, editor-in-chief in a number of sessions at the meeting: of the New England Journal of Medicine A number of the sessions in Montreal (NEJM). Dr. Drazen serves as the are built around bringing published work • “When the Business and Ethics of Distinguished Parker B. Francis Professor out of the academic world and into the Publishing Collide: Avoiding Fatalities”, of Medicine at Harvard Medical School wider world: moderated by Kristi Overgaard, of the and professor of physiology at the American Orthopedic Society of Sports Harvard School of Public Health. He • “Transforming Journal Content for Medicine. joined NEJM as editor-in-chief in July Multiple Audiences”, moderated by • “CSE/COPE Joint Session: The Life of 2000. His editorial background includes Christine Casey, of the Centers for a Retraction”, moderated by Heather service as an associate editor or editorial Disease Control and Prevention. Goodell, of the American Heart board member of the Journal of Clinical • “Informed Decisions: Sense about Association. Investigation, the American Journal of Science and Helping People Make • “Advances in Publishing Technology Respiratory Cell and Molecular Biology, Sense of Science and Evidence”, mod- from Authoring to Content Delivery”, and the American Journal of Medicine. erated by Julie Nash, of J&J Editorial. moderated by Mike Friedman, of the His presentation is titled “Two Hundred • “Communicating Through Media: From American Meteorological Society. Years of Communicating the Medical Journal Page to Center Stage”, moder- News” and traces the history of medi- ated by Tamer El Bokl, of Canadian cal-event reporting over the 200 years Science Publishing, NRC Research of NEJM’s existence. Press. (continued on page 35)

34 • Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 CSE News continued (from page 34)

In addition, a number of other sessions for everyone at the 2013 Annual Meeting, age you to take full advantage of the relevant to the global publishing enter- so clear your calendars and plan to attend. several walking tours and events that are prise are planned, covering such topics as The Program Committee members and being planned to help you discover the challenges facing “Eastern” authors pub- cochairs are not only excited about the beauty, history, and famous hospitality of lishing in “Western” journals, translations, diverse speakers and broad scope of the Montreal. We’re eagerly looking forward and improving review quality and referee program but looking forward to being to a wildly successful annual meeting and engagement. There really will be something in Montreal in the spring! We encour- hope to see you there!

2013 Program Committee

The 2013 Program Committee is chaired by Tony Alves and Mike Friedman. Committee members are Peter Adams, Patty Baskin, Philippa Benson, Mary Billingsley, Carolyn Brown, Christine Casey, Judy Connors, Tamer El Bokl, Jennifer Fleet, Barbara Meyers Ford, Heather Goodell, Anna Jester, George Kendall, Glenn Landis, Sandi McIntyre, Rebecca McLeod, Sheehan Misko, Julie Nash, Kristi Overgaard, Ingrid Philibert, Mary Beth Schaeffer, Angela Schmeckebier, Sarah Tegen, and Richard Wynne. continued (from page 33) know about these data. Participants will substantive editing of scientific materi- learn different ways to collect, analyze, and als for publication and sessions on best present journal data to editorial boards; practices in manuscript editing, including how to detect trends and analyze changes; language editing, process efficiencies, and how to use online usage data in conjunc- Word tips; editing of tables, including tion with circulation data for marketing table structuring, data consolidation, and the journal; and the value of readership technical tips; working with authors, with surveys and competition surveys. New this an emphasis on effective and appropriate year will be a session on Altmetrics—a dis- means of author querying; and ethical and cussion of new ways to gather data. legal issues that manuscript editors must address on an increasingly routine basis. The Short Course for Manuscript The day will conclude with a roundtable Editors discussion of various issues that manuscript Saturday, 4 May—Peter Olson (senior copy- editors face regularly. editing coordinator at Dartmouth Journal Services) has designed this short course to introduce beginning editors to the tools of the trade and to enable seasoned in the field. The course will include a editors to stay current and competitive review of skills required for mechanical and

Council of Science Editors – Social Media Find us on Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/CouncilofScienceEditors Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/CScienceEditors Join us on LinkedIn: http://www.linkedin.com (search for Council of Science Editors under Groups)

Science Editor • January – March 2013 • Vol 36 • No 1 • 35 2013

13–16 April Association of Clinical Research Professionals annual conference. Orlando FL. www.acrpnet.org.

17–19 April American Society for Indexing annual conference. San Antonio TX. www.asindexing.org.

29 April–1 May International Society for Medical Publication Professionals annual meeting. Baltimore MD. www.ismpp.org.

3–16 May Council of Science Editors annual meeting. Fairmont Queen Elizabeth, Montreal QC. Contact: CSE: 10200. W 44th Ave, Suite 304,Wheat Ridge CO 80033; (720)881-6046; www.CouncilScienceEditors.org.

4 May BELS (Board of Editors in the Life Sciences) examination. Montreal QC. Registration deadline is 13 April. Contact: Leslie E Neistadt, BELS Registrar, The Hughston Foundation, 6262 Veterans Pkwy, Columbus GA 31909; (706) 494-3322; fax (706) 494-3348; [email protected]; www.bels.org.

5–7 June Society for Scholarly Publishing annual meeting. San Francisco CA. www.sspnet.org.

7–9 June Editors’ Association of Canada annual meeting. Halifax NS. www.editors.ca.

24–26 June Drug Information Association annual meeting. Boston MA. wwwdiahome.org.

Calendar 1–6 November Association of American Medical Colleges annual meeting. Philadelphia PA. www.aamc.org.

6 November BELS (Board of Editors in the Life Sciences) examination. Columbus OH. Registration deadline is 16 October. See preceding BELS listing for registration information.

7–9 November American Medical Writers Association annual meeting. Columbus OH. www.amwa.org.

Information for Contributors

• Science Editor welcomes contributions on research on peer In the Next Issue review, editorial processes, and ethics and other items of interest to the journal’s readers. • Please submit manuscripts as e-mail attachments and • Technology for content distribution include the author’s contact information. • Submit material in the style recommended by Scientific • Preview of next edition of CSE style Style and Format, with references in the order of citation. • Submitted materials are subject to editing by the appro- manual priate editors and copyeditor. Send submissions and editorial inquiries to Patricia K Baskin, • Photos from 2013 annual meeting Editor-in-Chief, at [email protected].

36 • Science Editor • October – December 2012 • Vol 35 • No 1