FORCE11

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

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 http://www.force11.org/white_paper

4. Who is FORCE11? Humanities Publishers Social Science • 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 Tool builders Scholars Science Funders Library and Information scientists Policy makers Anyone who has a stake in moving scholarly communication into the 21st century

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 Library Scholar Publisher Scholar

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

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? • “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. “ 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.” • 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 Begley and Ellis, 29 MARCH 2012 | VOL 483 | NATURE | 531

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/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

16. Sessions

17. We have produced a 200 page report. What are you going to change? “Very Little.” Slide 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 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 “What is an orcid id?”-computer scientist FORCE 11: A mechanism for cross-disciplinary education and outreach

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

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

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

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? Workflows 4Ever ORCID Data Verse PeerJ, eLife Research Data Alliance Scalar Impact Story, Rubriq 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? Data journals Sadie

28. What big issues are we not addressing? • 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? • New roles and vanishing roles • Are there broad agreements that need to be forged? • Are the issues the same for all stakeholders? FORCE11 provides a forum for these discussions

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

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

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?