sign in sign up
<<
Home , Huda Zoghbi, John Kuriyan, Peter Walter

Randy Schekman Dept of Molecular and Cell Howard Hughes Medical Institute University of California, Berkeley • Subscription, open access or hybrid

• Print format with online access or online only

• Private commercial, public profit-generating or not-for-profit

• Professional editors, academic editors or both • Support in Europe – European Commission makes OA a “general principle” of Horizon 2020 - €80billion programme in research and innovation. – “We need Open Access to scientific information” (Neelie Kroes, Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda” • Support in the US – Research Works Act - withdrawn – Petition calling for OA received over 29k signatures – Federal Research Public Access Act reintroduced Publications BMC PLoS Hindawi %PubMed available as open access in PMC Number of WT, and HHMI papers published in Nature, , Cell and PLoS Bio/Med/Gen in 2011 and available through PubMed Central [Data collected: Nov 2011]

140

120

100

Total number of articles published in 2011, attributed to WT or HHMI 80

Total number of articles published in 2011, attributed to WT or HHMI, and in PMC 60

40

20

0 Nature Science Cell PLoS Biol/Med/Gen How does peer review work? The goals of peer review

• Assess technical merits of Open access is just work • Assess likely significance one part of a of work broader transition

http://www.scienceforseo.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/peerreview.jpg Is peer review The goals of peer broken? review

Open access is just one part of a broader transition

http://the-political-ear.com/?p=595 Martin Raff, Alexander Johnson and http://youtu.be/-VRBWLpYCPY • Presentation of new research often limited by the print edition • Time to put digital first

http://www.fybridphotos.com/objects _stock_photo_1130183.html

• General recommendations – Move away from impact factors – Assess outputs on their own merits – Exploit new tools and approaches • And specific recommendations for publishers, funders, institutions, metrics suppliers, and researchers • >6000 signatories Step 1 – sign the declaration! http://am.ascb.org/dora/

Google San Francisco DORA The best in science and science communication

Ground-breaking science, selected by experts, published without delay, open to the world elifesciences.org

Supported by World-class backing

• Supported by three of the world’s leading private research funders • Effective research communication is a critical part of research • Editorially, eLife is entirely independent of the funders

v6 What is eLife?

• A collaboration between funders and the research community to improve research communication • A researcher-led digital publication for outstanding work across the life • A platform to maximize the reach and influence of new research and to showcase new approaches for the presentation and assessment of research

v6 Edited by researchers

Editor-in-Chief - Randy Schekman, Berkeley, USA Deputy Editor – Fiona Watt, London, UK Deputy Editor – Detlef Weigel , Tübingen, Germany

Senior Editors Stylianos Antonarakis – Geneva, Switzerland Chris Ponting – Oxford, UK Ian Baldwin - Jena, Germany Janet Rossant – Toronto, Canada - Harvard, USA – New York, USA Joseph Goldstein – , USA Tadatsugu Taniguchi - Tokyo, Japan Tony Hunter – Salk, USA K Vijay Raghavan - Bangalore, India Prabhat Jha – Toronto, Canada Xiaodong Wang - Beijing, China - Berkeley, USA - Baylor College of , USA Richard Losick - Harvard, USA James Manley - Columbia, USA A 150-200-member Board of Reviewing Editors Eve Marder - Brandeis, USA Michael Marletta - Scripps, USA

v6 Proportion of initial submissions in each major Proportion of published research articles in each subject area (up to May 29, 2013; authors select major subject area (up to May 29, 2013; authors 1 or 2) select 1 or 2)

Plant biology Plant biology 3% 4%

Biochemistry 7% 11% 12% Neuroscience Biophysics and Microbiology 17% structural Biophysics and and infectious biology structural disease 12% biology 7% 12% Immunology 3% Microbiology and infectious Cell biology biology disease 15% Cell biology and medicine 9% 16% 10% Immunology 7% Developmental Genomics and Developmental biology/stem evolutionary biology/stem Genomics and cells biology and cells evolutionary Genes and 8% 9% chromosomes 9% Human biology biology chromosomes Epidemiology 8% and medicine 7% 8% and global Epidemiology 4% health and global Ecology 1% Ecology health 1% Born free

• Results will be available for free immediately on publication • Users will have the right to use results freely, providing full author attribution (Creative Commons-Attribution license) • All content will also be deposited in PubMed Central

Initially - also free of publication fees

v6 Cover letter and single Streamlined submission process prior to triage PDF

Swift triage process by Senior Editors Limit submissions entering peer review

Full Source files plus information important for peer submission review

BRE member plus external Consultation amongst reviewers before decision reviewer(s)

Decision after peer review Single set of instructions – focused revision

The end result Revision assessed by Limit rounds of revision > A constructive process BRE member > Reduced times from submission to acceptance

• Swift triage process by Senior Editors • BRE member assigned as a reviewer • A single review decision, reflecting a consensus of reviewers’ comments • Identify only essential revision requirements • Most revisions assessed by the handling editor, without further review

The end result A constructive process Reduced times from submission to acceptance I hate the editors of these journals more than I hate Republicans.

—, of double-helix fame, speaking about recent rejections from several journals