FORCE11

Future of Research Communications and E-Scholarship

http://force11.org

Maryann E. Martone, Ph. D.University of California, San Diego

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

The FORCE11 ManifestoProblems Recommendations

Formats and Technologies2.1 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 Credit2.4 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

Who is FORCE11?

Publishers

Library and Information

scientistsPolicy

makers

Tool builders

Funders

Anyone who has a stake in moving scholarly communication into the 21st century

Science

Social Science

Humanities

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

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.

Old Model: Single type of content; single mode of distribution

Scholar

Library

Scholar

Publisher

Scholar

Consumer

Libraries

Data Repositories

Code RepositoriesCommunity databases/platforms

OA

Curators

Social Networks

Social NetworksSocial

Networks

Peer Reviewers

Narrative

Workflows

Data

Blogs/Wikis

Multimedia

Nanopublications

Code

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

Whole-sale text-mining is required for synthesis and discovery

Search Pub Med: Spinal Muscular Atrophy

Current methods are inefficient and result in a non-computable product

PuneetKishor,

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

Scholarly communication should move away from its paper centric model and traditions, and join the

information age!

Ivan Herman

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

www.researchobject.org

Beyond the PDF• Conference/

unconference 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

Sessions

We have produced a 200 page report. What are you going to change?

“Very Little.”

May 15, 2013 17Slide courtesy of Todd Carpenter

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

Manifesto 1.0 Manifesto 2.0Problems Recommendations

Formats and Technologies2.1 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 Credit2.4 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?

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

ORCID – Author disambiguation

Founded by CrossRef, Thomson-Reuters, Nature in 2009

Now 328 participant organizations, 50 of which have provided sponsorship funding

Prototype technologyLaunched in fall 2011

May 15, 2013 21FORCE 11: A mechanism for cross-disciplinary education and outreach

“What is an orcid id?”-computer scientist

Bringing stakeholders together: Data citation principles

http://www.force11.org/AmsterdamManifesto

MercèCrosas, Todd Carpenter, David Shotton and Christine Borgman

Other 1K Challenge Winners

Tobias Kuhn, StianHaklev, Melissa Haendel

FORCE11: Engaging the community

Ending the tyranny of formatting

http://blogs.plos.org/mfenner/2012/12/13/a-call-for-scholarly-markdown/

Separating the code from the interface

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.orgMonarch Initiative: http://monarchinitiative.org

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

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 AlliancePeerJ, eLife

Workflows 4Ever

Data Verse

Impact Story, Rubriq

Sadie

Scalar

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 publishersScholars are curatorsPublishers are archivistsScholars are customersScholars are publishersEveryone 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 sciencesDeveloped and developing worldTechnologists and scholarsInstitutions and individualsScholars and taxpayers

Can and should everyone be brought to the table for all discussions?

FORCE11 provides a forum for these discussions

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

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

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?