Presentation to the Journals Committee of the American Association of Publishers

1. FORCE11
Future of Research Communications
and E-Scholarship
http://force11.org
Maryann E. Martone, Ph. D.
University of California, San Diego

2. What is FORCE11?
• Future of Research
Communications and E-
Scholarship
– A grass roots effort to
accelerate the pace and
nature of scholarly
communications and e-
scholarship through
technology, education and
community
• Why 11? We were born in
2011 in Dagstuhl, Germany
• Principles laid out in the
FORCE11 Manifesto
• FORCE11 launched in July
2012
Supported by a grant from the Sloan Foundation

3. The FORCE11 Manifesto
Problems Recommendations
Formats and Technologies
2.1 Existing formats needlessly limit, inhibit and
undermine effective knowledge transfer
3.1 Rethink the unit and form of the scholarly
publication
2.2 Improved knowledge dissemination
mechanisms produce information overload
3.2 Develop tools and technologies that better
support the scholarly lifecycle
2.3 Claims are hard to verify and results are hard to
reuse
3.3 Add data, software, and workflows into the
publication as first-class research objects
Business Models and Attribution of Credit
2.4 There is a tension between commercial
publishing and the provision of unfettered access to
scholarly information
3.4 Derive new financially sustainable models of
open access
2.5 Traditional business models of publishing are
being threatened
3.5 Derive new business models for science
publishers and libraries
2.6 Current academic assessment models don’t
adequately measure the merit of scholars and their
work over the full breadth of their research outputs
3.6 Derive new methods and metrics for evaluating
quality and impact that extend beyond traditional
print outputs to embrace the new technologies
http://www.force11.org/white_paper

4. Who is FORCE11?
Publishers
Library and
Information
scientists
Policy
makers
Tool
builders
Funders
Anyone who has a stake in moving scholarly communication into the 21st century
Science
Social
Science
Humanitie
s
Scholars
Executive Committee
•Maryann Martone, UCSD
•Phil Bourne, UCSD
•Anita de Waard, Elsevier
•Ed Hovy, Carnegie-Mellon
•Tim Clark, Harvard
•Cameron Neylon-PLoS
•Paul Groth-VU, Amsterdam
•Ivan Herman-W3C
•Dan O’Donnell-U Lethbridge

5. FORCE11 Vision
• Modern technologies enable vastly improve knowledge transfer and far wider
impact; freed from the restrictions of paper, numerous advantages appear
• We see a future in which scientific information and scholarly communication more
generally become part of a global, universal and explicit network of knowledge
• To enable this vision, we need to create and use new forms of scholarly
publication that work with reusable scholarly artifacts
• To obtain the benefits that networked knowledge promises, we have to put in
place reward systems that encourage scholars and researchers to participate and
contribute
• To ensure that this exciting future can develop and be sustained, we have to
support the rich, variegated, integrated and disparate knowledge offerings
that new technologies enable
Beyond the PDF Visual Notes by De Jongens van de Tekeningen is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License.

6. Old Model: Single type of content;
single mode of distribution
Scholar
Library
Scholar
Publisher

7. Scholar
Consumer
Libraries
Data Repositories
Code Repositories
Community
databases/platforms
OA
Curators
Social
Networks
Social
NetworksSocial
Networks
Peer Reviewers
Narrative
Workflows
Data
Blogs/Wikis
Multimedia
Nanopublications
Code

8. The scientific corpus is fragmented
• 22 million articles total,
each covering a
fragment of the
biomedical space
• Each publisher owns a
fragment of a particular
field
– Spinal Muscular Atrophy
• Fatal genetic disorder of
children
• 5000 papers

9. Whole-sale text-mining is required for
synthesis and discovery
Search Pub Med: Spinal
Muscular Atrophy

10. Current methods are inefficient and
result in a non-computable product
PuneetKishor,

11. Is the current method serving
science?
47/50 major preclinical
published cancer studies
could not be replicated
 “The scientific community
assumes that the claims in a
preclinical study can be taken at
face value-that although there
might be some errors in detail,
the main message of the paper
can be relied on and the data
will, for the most part, stand
the test of time. Unfortunately,
this is not always the case.”
Begley and Ellis, 29 MARCH 2012 | VOL 483 |
NATURE | 531
 “There are no guidelines that
require all data sets to be
reported in a paper; often,
original data are removed during
the peer review and publication
process. “
 Getting data out sooner in a
form where they can be
exposed to many eyes and
many analyses may allow us to
expose errors and develop
better metrics to evaluate the
validity of data

12. Scholarly communication should
move away from its paper centric
model and traditions, and join the
information age!
Ivan Herman

13. A new platform for scholarly
communications
Components
• Authoring tools
– Optimized for mark up and linked content
• Containers
– Expand the objects that are considered “publications”
– Optimize the container for the content
• Processes
– Scholarship is code
• Mark up
– Data, claims, content suitable for the web
– Suitable identifier systems
• Reward systems
– Incentives to change
– Reward for new objects
Scholarship must move from a “single currency system”;
platforms must recognize diversity of output and representation

14. www.researchobject.org

15. Beyond the PDF
• Conference/unconfe
rence where all
stakeholders come
together as equals
to discuss issues
• Incubator for
change
• What would you do
to change scholarly
communication?
San Diego, Jan 2011 ........... Amsterdam, March 2013

16. Sessions

17. We have produced a 200 page report.
What are you going to change?
“Very Little.”
May 15, 2013 17Slide courtesy of Todd Carpenter

18. Outcomes
• FORCE11 Manifesto 2.0
– Recommendations for
propelling scholarly
communications into the
future
• 1K Challenge:
– What would you do for 1K
to change scholarly
communication?
• Landscape of scholarly
communication
– Who is doing what?
– Are their gaps?
Visual notes of BtPDF2:De Jongens van de Tekeningen

19. Manifesto 1.0 Manifesto 2.0
Problems Recommendations
Formats and Technologies
2.1 Existing formats needlessly limit, inhibit and
undermine effective knowledge transfer
3.1 Rethink the unit and form of the scholarly
publication
2.2 Improved knowledge dissemination
mechanisms produce information overload
3.2 Develop tools and technologies that better
support the scholarly lifecycle
2.3 Claims are hard to verify and results are hard to
reuse
3.3 Add data, software, and workflows into the
publication as first-class research objects
Business Models and Attribution of Credit
2.4 There is a tension between commercial
publishing and the provision of unfettered access to
scholarly information
3.4 Derive new financially sustainable models of
open access
2.5 Traditional business models of publishing are
being threatened
3.5 Derive new business models for science
publishers and libraries
2.6 Current academic assessment models don’t
adequately measure the merit of scholars and their
work over the full breadth of their research outputs
3.6 Derive new methods and metrics for evaluating
quality and impact that extend beyond traditional
print outputs to embrace the new technologies
Can we check some things off? What do we need to add?

20. Born digital: Narrative objects made
for the web
• The Manifesto should
be an exemplar of a
new form of scholarly
communication
– Interactive
– Collaborative
– Born for the web
• The Digital
Humanities has been
thinking and creating
in this medium
Tara McPherson, University of Southern California

21. ORCID – Author disambiguation
Founded by CrossRef,
Thomson-Reuters,
Nature in 2009
Now 328 participant
organizations, 50 of
which have provided
sponsorship funding
Prototype technology
Launched in fall 2011
May 15, 2013 21FORCE 11: A mechanism for cross-disciplinary education
and outreach
“What is an orcid id?”-computer scientist

22. Bringing stakeholders together: Data
citation principles
http://www.force11.org/AmsterdamManifesto
MercèCrosas, Todd Carpenter, David Shotton and Christine Borgman

23. Other 1K Challenge Winners
Tobias Kuhn, StianHaklev, Melissa Haendel
FORCE11: Engaging the community

24. Ending the tyranny of formatting
http://blogs.plos.org/mfenner/2012/12/13/a-call-for-scholarly-markdown/
Separating the code from the interface

25. Reproducibility and representation of
research resources: Current problems
• Lack of access to materials and methods sections of papers
• Lack of sufficient information within a paper
– Author doesn’t supply sufficient information to uniquely identify the
resource
• No stock numbers, catalog numbers, model numbers, or other uniquely identifying
information
• Resource identification not optimized for automated
systems
– “We used the protocol of Martone et al., 1999”
– Official mouse strain names not meant for computers
• SMNΔ7tg/tg:Smn1−/−
– Non-unique, common names for resources, e.g., R
Neuroscience Information Framework: http://neuinfo.org
Monarch Initiative: http://monarchinitiative.org

26. Workshop: Identification and tracking
of biomedical resources
• Focus on developing consistent policies for
identifying key reagents and resources (e.g.,
software tools) used in scientific studies
• Neuroscience journal editors and publishers
• Consistent reporting format:
– Machine processable
– Outside the pay wall
June 26, 2013: Bethesda, MD

27. Scholarly communication landscape:
Is there a big picture?
Are we really suffering from a lack of
tools?
-or is it usable tools?
-or is it tools that are used?
-or is it awareness that there
are tools?
-or are these even the right
tools?
ORCID
Data journals
Research Data Alliance
PeerJ, eLife
Workflows 4Ever
Data Verse
Impact Story, Rubriq
Sadie
Scalar

28. What big issues are we not
addressing?
• New roles and vanishing roles
• Are there broad agreements
that need to be forged?
• Are the issues the same for all
stakeholders?
Librarians are publishers
Scholars are curators
Publishers are archivists
Scholars are customers
Scholars are publishers
Everyone is a standards developer!
Is there still a role for everyone?
 Are we training an adequate workforce?
Scholars need to be data scientists
Open citations? Text mining across the corpus?
Where is lack of coordination holding us back?
Humanities and sciences
Developed and developing world
Technologists and scholars
Institutions and individuals
Scholars and taxpayers
Can and should everyone be brought to the table for
all discussions?
FORCE11 provides a forum for these discussions

29. http://www.scilogs.com/eresearch/pages-of-history/ David De Roure29

30. The scholarly community is changing
• 7000 scientists signed
the declaration to end
the reliance on impact
factor
http://am.ascb.org/dora/
Jongens van de Tekeningen

31. Questions for you?
• Is your community represented in FORCE11?
• Are your needs the same as the other stakeholders in the areas
of:
– Containers
– Processes
– Mark up
– Authoring
– Reward
• Are there new areas not addressed in the manifesto?
• What do you need from FORCE11?
– Users?
– Tools?
– Collaborators?
– Advertising?
– A bully pulpit?/platform for cooperation?
– Protocols and best practices?
• What can you do for FORCE11?