Aug
2
After Science Journal Publishing is Over…
Filed Under Big Data, Blog, data analytics, healthcare, Industry Analysis, internet, Publishing, Reed Elsevier, Search, semantic web, social media, STM, Thomson, Uncategorized, Workflow | Leave a Comment
Despite a beautifully written blog on the F1000 site , the launch of ORC ( https://blog.f1000.com) did not get quite the blaze of commentary that I expected . Perhaps it was the timing , as researchers move away on summer holidays . Perhaps it was a bit sparing in terms of detail – more of a land claim than a plan . Perhaps it was unfashionably big thinking – most of the great conceptualisations of Vitek Tracz have taken some years before publishers have realised what they meant – and in that same moment that they have to buy them . And after all , F1000 sat there for a year or two before leading funders realised it was the perfect funder publishing vehicle . So we should not expect an ORC ( Open Research Central) , be it a Tolkien nasty or a Blakean benign , to be an immediate success , but it certainly lays down potential answers to one of the two key post- Journal Publishing questions .
As we move remorselessly into a world where no individual or team can hope either to read or keep track of the published research in any defined field without machine learning or AI support, primary publishing becomes less important than getting into the dataflow and thus into the workflow of scholarship . It still helps to be published in Nature or Cell , but that could take place after visibility on figshare or F1000. Get the metadata right , ensure the visibility and reputation management can commence . So the first question about the post journal world is ” Who keeps score and how is worth measured ?” And then we come to the next question . If the article is simply a waystage data report , and all the other materials of scholarly communication ( blogs , presentations etc) can be tracked , and the data from an experimental sequence can be as important for reproducibility as the article , and reports of successfully repeated experiments are as important in some instances as innovation, then the scheme of Notification and communication and cross-referencing must be open , community-owned and universally available , so how does it get established ?
As I see it , Vitek is proposing the answer to the second question . His majestic conception is to establish the open channel which completely substitutes current commercial publishing. Using the ideas of open post-publication peer review that he piloted successfully with F1000 for Wellcome and Gates , he will try to cut off the commercial publishers at source by depriving them of article flows for second and third tier journals , even if branded journals still survive as republishers of the best of the best . This is a well-aimed blow , since second tier journals with high circulations and less costly peer review are often the most profitable . . Of course , China , India and Russia may not move at the same rate as Europe and the USA . And , again , the move in some disciplines to erode article publishing into a data dump , a summary finding and a citation , will happen more slowly in other fields and may never happen at all in still others . . But the challenge of ORC is quite clear – here is an open vehicle with open governance that can do the job in a funder-dominated marketplace .
But I am still intrigued by the answer to the first question . Who is the accountable scorer who provides the summary reputation scoring . The data leader in the current market is almost certainly Elsevier , but can they become the ultimate player in reputation while remaining the largest publisher of journals ? Wiley appears to be in strategic schizophrenia and Springer Nature need to clear an IPO hurdle ( and decide on buying Digital Science – a critical decision here ) , so the Big Publisher market seems a long way away from coming up with any form of radical initiative. As I have suggested , peer review , if it ceases to be a pre-publication requirement, may once again be the key to all of this . If indeed peer review becomes important at the initiation of a research project- project proposal selection and evaluation of researchers members (the funding award ) – and post-publication , where continual re-evaluation will take place for up to three years in some disciplines , then several attributes are required . This is about a system of measurement that embraces both STM and HSS , yet is flexible enough to allow for discipline-based development . It requires a huge ability to process and evaluate metadata . It needs to be able to score the whole value chain of researcher activity , not just the publishing element . And for neutrality and trust by researchers , funders and governments it cannot be a journal publisher who does this .
In fact the only company who can do it without starting again is the one who has done it already in the transition from print to digital . Much of the skills requirement is there already at Clarivate Analytics , the former Thomson IP and Science . The old Web of Science unit , inheritors of the world of ISI and Gene Garfield , pointed clearly in this direction with the purchase of Publons , the peer review record system earlier this year . After years of working the librarian market , however , the focus has to change . As Vitek demonstrates , funders and researchers are primary markets , though there will be a real spin-off of secondary products from the data held in a compressive datasource of evaluation . And new relationships will be needed to create trusted systems for all user types . The current private equity players still need to invest – in a semantic data platform which can unsilo multi-sourced data and analyse it , and in some innovative AI plays like Wizdom.AI , bought recently by Taylor and Francis . Although it is relatively late in the day , and I could argue that Thomson should have been investing this opportunity five years ago , there is still time to recreate the old Web of Science positioning in a new , rapidly changing marketplace . When Clarivate’s PE ownership break it up and sell it on , as they will within 3-5 years , then I am sure there will be good competition for the patent businesses ..
But the jewel in the crown , with a huge value appreciation ( and a potential exit to funders ) could be the integrated science side of the business . And in order to get there , all that Clarivate need to find is the strategic leadership to carry out this huge transformation . When we see what they do in this regard , we shall see whether they are up for the challenge .
May
19
When Fiesole comes to Lille
Filed Under Big Data, Blog, data analytics, healthcare, Industry Analysis, internet, Publishing, Reed Elsevier, Search, semantic web, STM, Uncategorized, Workflow | Leave a Comment
…or the capital of civilisation reaches the capital of Flanders. For those of us who have been many times through Lille by train but never stopped to look, this was a very pleasant surprise on many fronts. And if, like me, you were checking into the 19th Fiesole Retreat, a unique conference which brings librarians, academics and publishers together to communicate in a group small enough to allow that to happen and large enough to be representative, there was double pleasure. Vieux Lille is fascinating, and the city has the second great art collection in France, laid out with huge imagination at the Beaux Arts. This edition of Fiesole, as ever meticulously managed by the Casalini team working with the Charleston Conference, was hosted by Julien Roche, director of the brilliant LILLIAD learning centre and innovation on the new university campus, which housed the retreat.
As soon as I arrive at a Fiesole Retreat I wonder why other conferences do not have this feel. During the days of the Retreat this really does feel like peers explaining to peers how all this new digital stuff is working out in academic life. The opening session was named “Linked (Open) data – Big Data” and reminded me at once of why I really enjoy these meetings – whatever the questions raised there is a chance here to develop your own agenda and pursue it in discussion at breaks and lunches with people who are unlikely to share your background and the limitations of your experience with experts from both the French and German national libraries on the roster we were bound to get differences of approach. What i found rather unexpected was the unanimity around the basic concepts of a data driven research world, and the underlying, central importance of text and data mining in sustaining that world. And as the concepts build from the experience in the room, one realises the gulf between the world into which Retreat members are emerging and the one from which they are departing. Between a world where licensing text and data mining is still non-standard, and where the corpus of knowledge can be searched in a single sweep, where barriers of ownership and control and location frustrate at every turn.
I have found this regularly happens to me at Retreat meetings. Once a theme has become apparent to my mind, I find it recurring in every subsequent session. The agenda went on to consider Reshaping Collection Development for 2025, but the issues that grabbed me came from Laurent Romary from Switzerland discussing “How to open up Digital Libraries for Digital Scholars”. Similarly when the session on “The Changing Scholarly Communication Ecosystem” came along, absorbing sessions from Jayne Marks (Sage) and Bas Straub (Konvertus) began to sharpen my view on the sustainability of current academic publishing practice. Anna Lunden from the Swedish National Library, describing the huge effort they have made to accommodate Open Access in one country alone, and then Frank Smith of JStor addressed the comparative poverty of the Open Books effort, despite Knowledge Unlatched, And then Michael Keller, librarian at Stanford, summed up in his crisp and masterful way. If Stanford spend $2.1 million on APCs this year then the argument about Open Access begins to collapse as cheap, effective publishing software turns every researcher and his librarian as the publisher of source. As Charles Watkinson reminded us, the growth of US (and UK, I would add) university presses has been remarkable. While the traditional Journals market players have tried to defend their branded journals, their requirement for copyright, and their control of the market through peer review, the smoke seems to me to be clearing, revealing a very different picture.
So when you can submit an article with reviews, ready for publication on a pre-print server or a university repository or figshare, will we be too concerned about the publisher of record as long as the metadata is in place? As long as the metadata is properly organized by libraries working together will we worry about brand or journal? Will today’s publishers become tomorrow’s organisers of reputation, ranking scholars and reviewers and contributions to the scholarly communication chain in terms of what other researchers did as a result – cited, blogged, downloaded, annotated etc? And will this turn into a rating system that helps to guide investors in governments and the private sector, or universities making appointments? And will the article cease to exist in the new workflow of scholarship, at least as something read only machines, or will it be replaced by conclusions directly annotated on the data and cited? And obviously, while every discipline and geography is different, where will the first movers be?
No one knows, of course, which is why a Retreat, particularly one focussed on what we are going to collect, store and search in the future, is so valuable. I clearly see now that Open Access is not the answer, but part of a journey, and part of the next stage will be the emergence of funders (Gates and Wellcome are there already) as publishers. But I am hooked – and will be at the 20th Fiesole in Barcelona to debate the issues with colleagues I have come to trust.
« go back — keep looking »