1 / 13

Comments on Designing the Microbial Research Commons: Digital Knowledge Resources

This article discusses the importance of social norms and researcher preferences in designing the microbial research commons. It examines the challenges of accessing scarce resources, such as funding and attention, and how open access aligns with researcher preferences. The article also explores different paths to open access, the importance of impact factor, barriers to university published open access journals, and the role of manuscript repositories and data depositaries in facilitating open access.

meiners
Download Presentation

Comments on Designing the Microbial Research Commons: Digital Knowledge Resources

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Comments on Designing the Microbial Research Commons: Digital Knowledge Resources Katherine J. Strandburg New York University School of Law

  2. PERSPECTIVE FOR COMMENTS: IMPORTANCE OF SOCIAL NORMS AND RESEARCHER PREFERENCES HOMO SCIENTIFICUS PREFERENCES: • Performingresearch • Autonomy in research direction • Learning results of the collective research enterprise Scarce resources needed to satisfy preferences: • Funding • Attention of others Access to these resources is mediated by publication – if OA is to succeed it must align with these preferences

  3. I. OA JOURNALS THREE PATHS TO OA • Open Access Journals (perhaps based at universities) • Existing Journal Adoption of Open Access approach • Parallel OA manuscript repositories and “proprietary” journals

  4. THE IMPORTANCE OF IMPACT FACTOR • Emphasis on high status publications exacerbated by recent trend to quantify publication records using impact factor • Table 3 (p. 67): • IF of OA journals: 4.0 (with range up to 9) • IF of restrictive journals: 5.77 (with range up to 50!!) • IF of 50 trumps long-term belief in value of OA • OA models cannot depend on scientists foregoing publication in high impact journals • IF is path dependent and sticky – network effects, preferential attachment, “Matthew effect” • Scientists unlikely to “vote with their feet” for the OA mode

  5. OTHER BARRIERS TO UNIVERSITY PUBLISHED OA JOURNALS • Problems with the law review model • Proliferation of journals b/c each university needs 1 (or 2 or 5) • Overly fine-tuned ranking of journals (rather than post hoc ranking based on citation)  over-emphasis on “placement” • Grad students are not law students • No need for publication venue • No time for journal editing functions • Is law review publication really faster? • Anecdotally, physics is 3 to 6 months • Microbial research? • Not convinced of synergies with university educational mission

  6. JOURNAL ADOPTION OF OA? • Unlikely b/c of bargaining power due to IF as discussed above • IP laws protect proprietary approaches and reform is difficult • Some movement is seen, but direct pressure on high impact journals is difficult • OA “tier” (e.g. Springer “Open Choice”) problematic if payment competes with spending on research • Journal versions of OA not entirely satisfactory

  7. MANUSCRIPT REPOSITORIES • Circumvent the need to get journals to change their practices • Need journal acquiescence only • Separate things that universities can do easily and well from things that are more difficult or harder to dislodge • Good manuscript and good data mining, etc. • Hard copy printing, credentialing service • Deposit can be mandated by funding agencies to grant recipients • Solves collective action problem • Aligns incentives

  8. MANUSCRIPT REPOSITORIES • NIH Experience • Journals do not prohibit deposit in such repositories • Federal Research Public Access Act of 2009 • Recently introduced in the Senate • Mandates agencies to ensure open access deposit of peer-reviewed manuscripts < 6 months after publication • Consistent with Obama administration Open Government push • Mitigates concerns with database protection statutes in Europe • No more sole source • Could integrate with material/data repositories • Users of data must deposit manuscripts • data and materials associated with manuscripts must be deposited

  9. WHAT ABOUT PROPRIETARY JOURNALS? • May adapt to “service provider” role • page charges • Hard copies • Archival version • “better” or “premium” database services (competing with the OA repository) • May not be commercially viable • Scientific societies • Universities • “Knowledge hubs” Could replace them, take them over, partner Manuscript repositories = path to some OA outcome

  10. II. DATA DEPOSITORIES • Similar to issue of material and research tool sharing (see earlier publications) • Collective action problem – temptation to withdraw w/o contributing

  11. II. DATA DEPOSITORIES Other Scientists Share Don't Share Share U(N)+M+R-C U(1)+M+R-C Don't Share U(N)+E–P U(1) +E-P Scientist A U(.): value of the database, depends on N M: first mover advantage regarding A’s data E: incremental value of exclusive use of A’s data R: reputational value of contributing, including attribution P: penalty for not contributing C: cost (including opportunity cost) of contributing Contribute iff: R+P-C > E-M: U(N) doesn’t matter!

  12. II. DATA DEPOSITORIES • Roughly speaking, then, success of depository depends on R+P-C > E-M • Reduce costs!! (Cf. “Empty Archives,” Nature, 9/10/09) • Easy formats • No direct fees • Provide rewards for contributing (e.g. attribution) • Note these rewards must compete w/ rewards for sharing informally with collaborators • Provide penalties for non-contribution (funder requirements to contribute) • Depositories work best for interdependent data

  13. II. DATA DEPOSITORIES • Moral Hazard and Industry Scientists • Withdraw w/o contributing problems may be much greater for industry scientists • Different motivations • Less concern w/ reputation, funding, etc. • Greater access to secrecy • Should we be concerned? • If so, may want to consider semi-commons approach • Fee for service or data for data

More Related