Cadmore media player playing video Walking the Rocky Road from Policy to Compliance: A Live Adventure
Video Player
Accessibility
Using forms mode, you can utilize keyboard shortcuts to make usability more efficient.
Space bar will play and pause the video. Pressing escape will close all displays and pressing it again will jump to the end of the player.
You can press A to open the Keyboard Shortcut Dialog which also provides an audio description of the player and all of its features.
Language
1x
Play Speed
Adjust Volume
Transcript
Search
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Re-center
Segments
Result Count
of
Click to jump to result
Search
Name:
Walking the Rocky Road from Policy to Compliance: A Live Adventure
Description:
Walking the Rocky Road from Policy to Compliance: A Live Adventure
Thumbnail URL:
https://cadmoremediastorage.blob.core.windows.net/fecefaa3-b5d6-4fc7-a5d4-95c10fb5cf84/thumbnails/fecefaa3-b5d6-4fc7-a5d4-95c10fb5cf84.png
Duration:
T00H56M43S
Embed URL:
https://stream.cadmore.media/player/fecefaa3-b5d6-4fc7-a5d4-95c10fb5cf84
Content URL:
https://cadmoreoriginalmedia.blob.core.windows.net/fecefaa3-b5d6-4fc7-a5d4-95c10fb5cf84/AM21 Session 4B - Walking the Rocky Road from Policy to Comp.mp4?sv=2019-02-02&sr=c&sig=lRZpv8rVZyHMfZyK7hVNnfcpxa%2BEiY3bwFthrH3f5KI%3D&st=2024-11-22T10%3A12%3A09Z&se=2024-11-22T12%3A17%3A09Z&sp=r
Upload Date:
2024-02-02T00:00:00.0000000
Transcript:
Language: EN.
Segment:0 .
HEATHER STAINES: Maybe when you see us, you'll be happy you're not in the same room with us. All right, about 30 more seconds. Thank you guys for joining. I will draw your attention in the Pathable chat. There is a Slido link and code. There will be participant polls throughout the session. So if you want to participate in that, you can cue that up. It's in the Pathable chat.
HEATHER STAINES: And as soon as we kick off, I will also drop it into the chat here in Zoom. All right, I think we're slowing down just a bit. So we will get started. Welcome, everyone today. I'm Heather Staines. The moderator and time Viking for today's session, Walking The Rocky Road From Policy To Compliance : A Live Adventure.
HEATHER STAINES: Whether you're an author or a journal editorial office, a publisher or a funder, ensuring compliance with an ever changing set of policies and guidelines can seem like an impossible quest. Today, we present an actual quest. Join our intrepid adventurers as they travel from policy city, to the elusive and potentially mythical palace of researcher compliance. Can they defeat the three-headed troll of conflicting instructions?
HEATHER STAINES: Will the wizard of machine learning help them or hinder them? And if they're fortunate to reach compliance, will there be any treasure left to cover their costs? We've assembled a hearty band of adventurers with the necessary expertise in such areas as open access policies, journal submission guidelines, funder mandates and data sharing policies. You, our audience will be involved throughout.
HEATHER STAINES: We'll use the Slido instant polls to determine how our adventures take on various challenges. Look for the link in the Pathable Chat. I am your moderator and timekeeper. I'll be running point and watching for your questions. On the other side of our quest we'll have a serious discussion, on how stakeholders can choose, close the implementation gap between the good intentions of a policy and the goal of consistent and monitored compliance.
HEATHER STAINES: And now over to my illustrious colleague, enchanter extraordinaire, Tim.
HEATHER STAINES: Speaker 2: Oh, no. Just getting rid of my head horns. OK. First, let me introduce myself. I am a dungeon master. An entity akin to a guide, albeit for an imaginary realm. My role here is to set out the scene.
HEATHER STAINES: The waters in which I'll play a swim if you will. And step into the shoes along the way of the entities they meet and describe their actions. My colleague Heather, she's just explained, has her male fist on the stopwatch of this session. If your question turns into a 10 minute rambling comment, then hers is the wrath you will face. But now to brighter things. We brought together 3 fantastic people for this session.
HEATHER STAINES: And you're all here now as well. So we're going to slip into character and get on with it. Thank you all for joining me in policy city I have-- let us share this. I've invited you all here to join me on this quest. Because of your individual talents. Let me introduce you to your colleagues for this adventure. Our ranger, Jessica Myles, is from an obscure organization known only as Elsevier.
HEATHER STAINES: Rumor has it that she has tamed numerous strange beasts known as trends journals. And must struggle daily to keep up with their demands for fresh manuscripts to devour. I suggest-- her good side. A cleric, Natasha Simons, hails from the sacred order of the Australian Research Data Commons. The order devotes itself to making things open. Particularly data sets and research infrastructure.
HEATHER STAINES: But also cans and cannot. Beware for the order's influence grows throughout the land. Finally we're fortunate to be joined by our dashing brother, Ginny Barber. She has been the hidden hand behind many pivotal events in the land of science publishing. She was there when PLOS medicine was discovered. She ruled the committee for publication ethics for many years.
HEATHER STAINES: And looked in the shadows as the great guidelines of PRISMA and CONSORT were forged from community consensus. Even now, she flits between an identity at Queensland University of Technology. And a disguise as the Directory of Open Access Australasia. We start here in policy city. The shining example of the good intentions.
HEATHER STAINES: And how we want the world to be. Sadly, this vision only rests in the minds of its inhabitants. Invisible and weak unless others outside our gates believe in us and follow our guidance. The inhabitants of policy city have multiplied greatly in recent years. The discontent is growing across the land. Over whose policy takes precedence. More critically, the inhabitants of this land, simple, honest folk known as researchers are too busy tilling the Earth to heed our guidance.
HEATHER STAINES: Such that too many beautiful policies go unfulfilled and unloved. You three, chosen from amongst the best of us must journey out from policy city, to the castle of compliance. There you will find the treasure we all seek. The perfect match between our policies and the actions taken by our researcher folk. Only then, can this land be made whole.
HEATHER STAINES: You will meet challenges along the way. But in between there will be an opportunity for each of you to regale us with your hard won wisdom. I should note, that you do not journey entirely alone. Nay, by the magic of telepathy we are joined by a host of audience members. To act as witnesses for your deeds. You may see their innermost thoughts written out in the chat.
HEATHER STAINES: Or feel the nagging presence of a question in the Q&A. Fear not. For once we have reached the end of this journey these idle musings will be aired in the discussion session. These witness spirits also have a role to play. We will seek the guidance of crucial moments on our journey, with online polls. Do not fear the audience. Input from the audience can occasionally be helpful.
HEATHER STAINES: And the audience member, you can find the link to Slido in the Pathable chat. And in the Zoom chat. Our various polls will appear there in due course. And now, great adventurers, we must begin. We turn to you Jessica, of Elsevier.
JESSICA MILES: Thank you Tim for letting me accompany you on this quest. As Tim said I hail from an obscure land of Elsevier. And also within the region of Cell Press, another obscure land you might have heard of. I speak to how we do things in our land which might differ from other regions you may be familiar with. And so we start with this premise. If I can advance in this land.
JESSICA MILES: There we go. The university requires Green Open Access. Your funder requires Gold Open Access and the journal you're publishing in is subscription only. How should these be resolved? And obviously this is an epic quest. And so, perhaps these constraints are a little bit more, shall we say exaggerated than one might face in reality.
JESSICA MILES: But here is the three-headed troll. And here's how we will deal with the three heads. Indeed navigating Open Access mandates can feel like a labyrinth. But really it's about balancing rights and access options. Which I'll go through briefly again how we think about those from a typical perspective. So next slide. Thank you.
JESSICA MILES: We think about, generally, two categories in terms of capturing the full suite of options. Gold Open Access. And we use the term Gold Open Access it's really thinking about at the article level. A situation where published research is free for everyone to read and use immediately upon publication. And authors who choose Gold Open Access are given the choice, again within Cell Press and Elsevier, of two types of licenses.
JESSICA MILES: One for commercial purposes. One that restricts that. And then our second head of the troll is the Subscription option. Where the cost of publication are covered by readers who pay to receive access. And within that, we talk about Green Open Access. As a situation where authors can share their accepted manuscript on a non-commercial hosting platform.
JESSICA MILES: Typically an institutional repository. So sometimes this is called Repository based access, after a posting embargo period has elapsed. So with that lead up, now we get into the real crux of our journey, which is why is all of this so complex? And from a publisher perspective, we're really attempting to balance two different payment models. Both of which all authors want.
JESSICA MILES: The first, this Gold Open Access model, is a broadcasting model. And so, the funder, the institution or the authors is paying for dissemination of the article. And in this case, whoever is paying, is depending on publication output. Which is different from the Subcription model. Which we can think of as a receiving model. Where the reader is paying to obtain access and spend depends on reading needs.
JESSICA MILES: So we're not only balancing these two different types of models. We're also navigating the fraught waters of variable Open Access needs. Which can vary widely depending on the region, the country, the funder and the discipline. And so to make sense of all this complexity, we prioritize author choice and work with individuals and funders to offer tailored solutions.
JESSICA MILES: Time is running short on our quest. So I will not run through all of these solutions. But I will assure you that we have an Open Access journal home, for every author who wants one. We are fully, 500, Gold Open Access journals that offer complete Gold Open Access. The remaining titles offer Gold Open Access articles with subscription articles. We also have funding arrangements to help authors comply and liaise directly with funders.
JESSICA MILES: To make sure that they can comply and publish. We have a growing list of bespoke transformative agreements with countries and institutions. And we also set up author support services. For example our submission systems now have a feature where authors can see at the point of submission, what Open Access options are available at the journal that they're submitting to? And what the article processing charge for that option is.
JESSICA MILES: And we very, very much encourage authors to consider institutional and funding mandates at the time of submission. So to conclude. We're committed to helping authors continue to publish with us while complying with funder and institutional policies. So that we can all navigate the labyrinth together and play this three-headed troll.
JESSICA MILES:
HEATHER STAINES: Tim are you with us?
TIM VINES: Yes. My mouse is not there. My cursor just disappeared. OK. Not a moment after the ranger finishes speaking, the party hears a distant thumping. The cadence, can only be footsteps. But what could be so fast? The party's members stare around in horror. They stand in a wide valley with no cave or shelter in site.
TIM VINES: They gather closer, draw their weapons and prepare to face their doom. Moments later, the monstrosity comes into view. By some divine happenstance, the fiend is a physical embodiment of the very topics the ranger was just describing. It is a three-headed troll. Larger than a nonprofit publisher's headquarters.
TIM VINES: And slightly less attractive. The first head spots our quaking party. And roared something like, for any article covered by the university's policies, authors should provide the author's final version for inclusion in the university's Open Access repository. It's one good eye bulging, the second head yells out, coalition of organizations require that at least the author accepted manuscript open brackets AAM close brackets.
TIM VINES: Supported by their funding is published within a CC BY license with no embargo. The third head gnashes it's awful teeth. And the dreadful silence that follows growls, this funding agency does not have an account with our journal. And the authors are responsible for the entire Open Access charge.
TIM VINES: At this precise moment, the party seeks the collective wisdom of the audience. So if you switch over to Slido, the poll will be there. I will read out the questions. Should Jessica the ranger one, tell the troll she's posted articles of preprint? So it's already open access. Should she two, publish the articles of subscription only? And hope that neither the first or the second head notices.
TIM VINES: Should she three, hand over the party gold to have the article be published open access? Or option four, should she put the accepted version of the manuscript onto her institutional repository? And the time viking will show me when enough of you have registered your complaints and opinions in the poll. We will switch over.
HEATHER STAINES: Yes. We have the results coming in. Give it just a few more seconds. Get your vote in if you care about the author.
TIM VINES: The fates hang in the balance. The male will be eaten by the troll if you pick the wrong one, or else you have to stop.
HEATHER STAINES: OK. Tim do I need to hit a button or shouldn't it just show?
TIM VINES: The results I think, tell you what, will go there.
HEATHER STAINES: I don't see a button that says show results so.
TIM VINES: You don't see a button to show results?
HEATHER STAINES: No.
TIM VINES: Let me see if I can press the button to make sure the results.
HEATHER STAINES: Maybe when I close it nope. This questing is a dangerous business. Despite lots of planning.
TIM VINES: Despite lots of planning.
HEATHER STAINES: Your poll maybe errant.
TIM VINES: OK.
HEATHER STAINES: I can read it out if they can see.
TIM VINES: Yeah. Go ahead and read it out.
HEATHER STAINES: The winner with 61% option four put the accepted version of the manuscript on her institutional repository. A slightly lower margin 24%, wanted to hand over the party gold to have the article be published open access, which is a noble option. But may leave us with no gold at the end. So we'll see. Tim, on with the show.
TIM VINES: Jessica, our fearless ranger replete with advice from the audience, steps forward. And tells the troll that she has put the accepted version of her manuscript onto an institutional repository. The troll heads look momentarily stunned and turn to each other. The first matters to the third, Huh, I thought you said there was no way to meet all three criteria at the same time. The second roars, we're just going to have to let them go.
TIM VINES: The third chips in, I know. We'll jointly develop a set of incompatible guidelines and call them coalition troll. Looking somewhat humbled, the troll--
HEATHER STAINES: Tim, go back to the Slido.
TIM VINES: What? It's terrible.
HEATHER STAINES: Your acting just pulled it off. That was great. It was really great.
TIM VINES: [LAUGHS] But don't overreact. OK. So this is-- now we move on. The party, which breathes a sigh of relief, returns to Natasha, The cleric of open data.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Peace and blessings everyone. Peace and blessings. I'm here to bring you data. Next slide, please Tim. So have you ever felt that understanding policy is like taming a hippogriff? Research policy is a really weird animal that looks like it's being stitched together from ill-fitting parts.
NATASHA SIMMONS: There are funder policies, institutional policies, publishing policies, government policies, that are all pulled together. Sometimes in a complementary way. And sometimes in a misaligned or even contradictory way. And it can feel unknown, unpredictable, unsafe and volatile. And the result is that researchers are very often afraid of it.
NATASHA SIMMONS: And for good reason. Many have wondered, what am I being asked to do? Who's asking me to do it? Do I have to do it? When do I have to do it? How do I do it? What happens if I can't comply? And who can help me? So policy can be a challenging beast to tame.
NATASHA SIMMONS: But like Harry here, you need to make friends with it rather than aggravate it, with your distress or disapproval. Yes next slide please. So did you know that data now has a starring role in research policies? Previously overlooked like a hobbit as being small and unimportant to be discarded in favor of the glorious article, the availability of data is now critical to research.
NATASHA SIMMONS: And data availability statements are now widely required by journals as a condition of article publication. And funders are increasingly asking for similar statements to track the return on their investment dollars. So data availability or data sharing has a range of benefits which I'm sure you're all familiar with. But among the top of those are that it allows research results to be verified.
NATASHA SIMMONS: It supports reproducibility of research. And improves science because it drives better quality of research. Next slide please. Are you aware that research publisher policies are becoming increasingly FAIR. So that's an acronym that most of you will know by now. FAIR meaning, Findable Accessible Interoperable Reusable.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Which comes from the FAIR principles which were published in Nature back in around 2016. And have been growing in importance over these years. And if you look at some of the major publishing websites, you will see references to the FAIR data principles. For example, Wiley says research data is as important as the published article. When data is FAIR, the process becomes more efficient as you can access and analyze each other's findings and we use it to inform new findings.
NATASHA SIMMONS: And PLOS, says that they upload all supporting information files associated with an article, to the Figshare repository to increase compliance with the FAIR principles. Elsevier as well is committed to making data effective and developing better research data management processes and systems to support data sharing. And with their Mendeley platform, supporting the FAIR data principles as their solution.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Next slide, please. So like Frodo from Lord of the Rings you must submit. And to your quest, it is your fate, what must you do to comply is the question. So each journal has a different policy with regard to data sharing. And you need to become familiar with what that is. So here's an example from PLOS. Where PLOS journals require authors to make all data necessary to replicate their findings available without restriction at the time of publication.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Next slide, please Tim. So this is what it looks like when what you're generally being asked to do, is to produce or come up with a data availability statement. And there are four of these types of data availability statements. The first one is just not available. So no data is available at all which is quite common. There's also data available on request or similar.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Which is problematic because it doesn't really show that the data is available. And you can change from one institution to another and the email address doesn't work anymore. And that study was five years ago and I don't know where the data is. It's not in any accessible place you have to ask the authors generally on request. You have data availability with the paper and it's supplementary files.
NATASHA SIMMONS: And that is also problematic in some journals. Just actually, can axe supplementary files so the data is then lost. And it's also big management overhead for journals as well to do that. And the last one and there is a move from the publishers away from supplementary files and into the third one, which is data available in the repository as I mentioned.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Wiley and PLOS both having integrations with Figshare repository. And Elsevier having the Mendeley platform. It is the repository solution that's being looked at here. And that is the one that is most consistent with the FAIR data principles. Next slide, please Tim. So the data policy. It's important to note is actually changing data availability.
NATASHA SIMMONS: So you can see here this is a slide from the PLOS blog. And it shows you, the black line in the middle is the time that they implemented their data sharing policy. And before that they had no data availability statements. After that, they gave a little people about, I think it was almost a year to settle into that idea. So you see that first bar graph is different. But then you can actually see where people putting their data.
NATASHA SIMMONS: So the biggest section is still in supplementary section of journals. And I think it's still only around 20% in repositories. And that's the figure that I think we're going to see increase over the years to come. Next one please. OK. So to help this along, I collaborated with a number of the publishers through representatives of publishers.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Particularly Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, who's then the Head of Data Publishing at Springer Nature. To put together this General Data Policy Framework. To help journal editors to adopt a policy around data sharing. Because it is actually a very tricky situation to navigate there, to know what to be included in a policy. And we have a number of features that you can select from. And then on the right there it shows you-- you can select the strength of your policy.
NATASHA SIMMONS: And then pick the features you want to include. Next slide, please. So everything is now starting to line up. In that, we are looking to align what is happening with the publisher research data policies and the funder research data policies. Because it's difficult if funders are asking for one thing, and publishers are asking researchers for something else.
NATASHA SIMMONS: So through the Research Data Alliance, which is a global network to solve some data challenges, we are looking at taking that work that we did previously around the Master General guidelines, the framework. And working with the funders interest groups in research data alliance to align those policies. So you're very welcome to be involved in that discussion. It's available if you go to the Research Data Alliance website. And you look up the Data Policy Standardization Interest Group, you can join and just, you'll get updates on what is happening with that group.
NATASHA SIMMONS: And we hope that that will produce not such a hippogriff anymore. But more like a nice, streamlined Pegasus of policies. Where they're actually all complementary and nicely fitting together. And that's all from me. May your data live long and prosper.
TIM VINES: All right. Thank you very much Natasha. Our parties resolve returns after the cleric's inspiring tale. And they make quick progress out of the valley and up into the hills. Ahead a strange tower looms over their path, blocking our adventurous way. As they reach the wrought iron gates, Bless Natasha steps forward.
TIM VINES: And runs her hand over the metal. With a shudder, she realized that she recognizes these symbols. They're poorly formatted DOI's. What mad hand could create such a monstrosity! A part of his vision swims and with a lurch they find themselves suddenly inside a tower. Across the room stands a strangely wired wizard.
TIM VINES: With a crackle, the wizard turns to face them. More poor fools trying to reach the castle of compliance. What makes you think your feeble bodies can make it there without my help? The road is paved with millions of research outputs. And more appear every day. No. You must pay tribute to me.
TIM VINES: For I am the great wizard of machine actionable metadata. Without my help, every path you take from here, generates a 404 error. The party huddles around. What offering should they make to satisfy the wizard of machine actionable metadata? Should they try to defeat it instead? Dear audience, they cast their beseeching eyes to you. Poll two is now open on Slido.
TIM VINES: Should read the options. What should Natasha do here? The party could promise to label every single one of their possessions with an RRID. Number two, they can ask the wizard, if it's OK if only one of the party has an ORCID number and hope it explodes. They could, number three, vow to henceforth, always add a data citation into their references section.
TIM VINES: Or number four, they could apologize profusely for not acknowledging the funding for this expedition. But explain that a stolen dragon award, was not in the FAIR ref list. There was no way to get into it. Slide. Let's check in with the time viking to see what the response rate is like.
HEATHER STAINES: Their responses are coming in. And I'm told that if Tim the enchanter votes--
TIM VINES: Oh-- [INTERPOSING VOICES]
HEATHER STAINES: The results.
TIM VINES: --let us test this.
HEATHER STAINES: At the risk of adding one more technological thing in and causing everything to explode.
TIM VINES: I am going to make the wizard explode. No. OK.
HEATHER STAINES: Oh it's still coming in. It's still coming in. Get your votes in under the wire. OK. I think we're going to call it for time. By a margin. Go ahead, Tim.
TIM VINES: OK. The RRID just made a sudden surge. But I think it's stable. I think it's stable now. OK.
HEATHER STAINES: And the winner, vowed to henceforth always add a data citation to their reference section. [CHEERS]
TIM VINES: All right. Natasha, the cleric of open data steps forward and tells the wizard of machine actionable metadata, in a surprisingly earnest voice, that it will always, always, henceforth annotate a citation to the references section. The wizard of machine actionable metadata, stops it's quite hum for a moment.
TIM VINES: And cock it's head towards the party. Really do that? Actually, really, do that? And now? Rather than sometime in the next 40 years. Now, I know what it feels like when somebody loves me. The castle goes dark around them. There's another lurch in reality and the party finds themselves back on the same path.
TIM VINES: The tower is gone. And the walls of a castle are just about visible in the distance. The exhausted party sits beside the road and turns to the brava Ginny. What a story.
GINNY BARBOUR: Thank you to my noble questers. Thank you especially to all of you for joining me. I come from the great southern land where the dawn is just breaking. I come to tell you a story about how academics can be challenged. Can work with to support integrity in publishing. This is a bloody quest and we will tackle this challenge together. Next slide Tim.
GINNY BARBOUR: First we know that publishing is in conflict with integrity. And we know that much blood is spilt in the ivory towers of academia. As unfortunate academics, work daily to confront the challenges of how to publish as much as possible. And to how to keep their integrity. Next slide. But before we start, we seek your advice.
GINNY BARBOUR: We will be developing a magical word cloud as I speak. And as we go through, we will challenge-- look at this at the end. So my question to all of you, boys and people from around the globe, is what do you think needs to be changed to increase integrity in publishing? And the magical word cloud will appear at the end. Thank you Tim.
GINNY BARBOUR:
TIM VINES: The word cloud, Heather will be making the word cloud available on Slido right now.
HEATHER STAINES: Yes the word cloud is available on Slido. And the results are trickling in.
TIM VINES: OK.
GINNY BARBOUR: We will look at it--
TIM VINES: Ginny, would you like to look this at the end or should we look at this--
GINNY BARBOUR: Yeah. We will reveal it at the end I think. Can we do that?
HEATHER STAINES: Right now we have a clear winner. But lots of things are coming in.
GINNY BARBOUR: Oh OK. Well this might magically change my quest. But [LAUGHS] I'll go on regardless.
TIM VINES: Yeah, right.
HEATHER STAINES: All right. Tim, do you want to show the results? We've got a winner.
TIM VINES: No. We'll show it at the end of Ginny's talk, right?
HEATHER STAINES: OK. Yeah, let's do that.
TIM VINES: All right.
GINNY BARBOUR: All right next slide, thank you. All right. So I'm sure that everyone is-- No, back, back, back. I think my magic is failing here or at least my or my systems are going crazy. All right. It can feel like it's a fight between publishing and integrity. We all know what it's like.
GINNY BARBOUR: We want to do the best that we can. We want researchers to do the best they can. But they have impossible things that they have to challenge every day. Next slide. And it's because of this circle of death that we have poor academics are stuck into. So just as I speak if you could click through. So first off we know that publications are prioritized.
GINNY BARBOUR: We have this terrible system. Where only the magic gold is given for the final output of research publications. Is the only things that are awarded. Even worse than that, universities may actually have to publish a certain number of publications to qualify as universities. And we know that they require publication in certain journals.
GINNY BARBOUR: The dreaded quartiles or even deciles that we now know that academics are kept to. Next slide. And that leads to pressure to publish. And this is probably one of the biggest challenges that we face as a community. Cutting corners with data collection. Only publishing positive results. Poorly written publications.
GINNY BARBOUR: And the dreaded P-hacking that we see constantly in publications that come out regularly. And even worse than that, we know that from time to time speed can be of the essence. We've seen a terrible rise in increased numbers of low quality journals. And although much is made of the deceptive nature of these journals, the truth is that for a number of academics they serve a purpose.
GINNY BARBOUR: Which is that they serve a purpose of rapid publication. And so academics are using them on occasion to get published when they have no choice to-- other than to get their research out very quickly. And the same is true for conferences, which are also a curse on this whole system. Next. And so finally, we have a blind application of metrics. Quantitative over qualitative.
GINNY BARBOUR: Particularly favors established disciplines. And is highly-- tilts academic behaviour to specific ways. And so what we find is that the route to publication wins over integrity over time. So next slide. But in fact, just like this poor troll who is supporting a bridge not actually trying to bring it down, we know that integrity can support quality publishing.
GINNY BARBOUR: But how is that? Do not look at his face. He is doing the great job of holding up that bridge of supporting quality publishing. He's not trying to bring it down. Next slide. And that's especially true if we can address the biases in publishing. And so from the DORA-- from the great work of DORA this golden manuscript has addressed a whole load of issues.
GINNY BARBOUR: Challenges to think about the biases that we all bring to publishing. And the ones that I just like to bring to your attention first of all are the Matthew effect. The idea that funds flow to those that already have them. The concept of the halo effect. That we get positive impressions of individuals already influence our overall outcome. The availability that we go with anecdotes rather than evidence based every time.
GINNY BARBOUR: Which leads to probably the biggest problem of all which is the overall tendency to keep the status quo. Next slide. I see a magic cat has appeared in the background of one of our audience. So what can we do to change the recipe to support integrity and quality in publishing? Next slide.
GINNY BARBOUR: My suggestion to you is that it's all based around being open. So what does that look like? So let's start with the methods. Open source. We have increased transparency for methodology. Open methods allow us to, next slide master, allow all activities across the research lifecycle to be rewarded and valued.
GINNY BARBOUR: Open data. The magical open data of my colleague ensures that we have less emphasis on positive results. Open-- Oops. Oh what's happened?
HEATHER STAINES: No you're good. Keep going.
GINNY BARBOUR: Oh I've lost the slides.
HEATHER STAINES: OK. We're on the same slide--
GINNY BARBOUR: Oh. OK.
HEATHER STAINES: In support of publishing, supported.
GINNY BARBOUR: Apologies. I can't see the slides. All right I'll keep going. [LAUGHS] I can do this. Yeah. So the increased diversity of Open Access allows increased diversity of publishing. Open Education means that we have reward for other academic activities. And finally Open Peer Review.
GINNY BARBOUR: Means that we can have quality research outputs is supported through a whole new methodology. Which just does not lead to, the ways of the past where we just think of only one way of peer review. And so my final slide is that we can in the end have publication and integrity to be in harmony.
HEATHER STAINES: Great. Tim can you share the results of the word cloud? You may have to put in a word in order to get the results to appear for you. Or I can read them out.
TIM VINES: Everyone see the word cloud? Transparency comes through. Ginny can you see it?
GINNY BARBOUR: I can. Excellent. I'm delighted with the results. My magic powers clearly worked across oceans to influence everyone's behavior.
TIM VINES: Absolutely. Everyone knew ahead of time. Brilliant. OK. Let's see if we can manoeuvre back. The point-- OK. To adventure part. Up to a few more hours of walking, the castle of compliance now stands before our intrepid party.
TIM VINES: Unfortunately a chasm, containing purple tentacles, also stands before them. Between them and the castle. As the party stands and stares into the morass, a voice whispers to them on the wind. Oh brave adventurers. Your prize awaits at the castle of compliance. It is so close, you can almost touch it.
TIM VINES: Let us, as tentacles carry you across. At this moment the tentacles themselves reach forward and beckon, enticingly to the party. Swooping low and shaping themselves into comfortable seats. A brave ranger and cleric, step forward. But Ginny the brava drags them back. Her keen eyes have spotted the names on these tentacles. And her key knows to sniff out a trick.
TIM VINES: These tentacles do indeed offer an easy way forward. But that way is also perilous. One tentacle, a salami slicing, which bodes well for lunch. But is a bane to academic publishing. The research is in its grip, always striving to find the smallest possible publishable unit. Another tentacle is P-hacking. The cruel art of torturing data with statistics until it says whatever you want it to say.
TIM VINES: The third is plagiarism. The dank cousin of text copying. Where ideas and words are torn from the author's breast and made to toil in another's research manuscript. The last named tentacle, and perhaps the most terrible is data fabrication. Which squeezes researchers until all their hesitations are gone. And they change their data to fit the story.
TIM VINES: Now that the false promise of a quick and easy ride across the chasm has been exposed for the lie it is, the party draws back and consults. Once again they ask the audience for help. How should the party cross the chasm? And Heather the time viking, at this moment is activating the poll.
HEATHER STAINES: As we speak.
TIM VINES: As we speak. Option one. We try to find a narrower spot, jump across. Option two. The party tries to copy the Lord of the Rings and uses eagles to access the castle. Option three. Natasha should beseech the gods of open data to strike down the tentacles. On the grounds that they're not interoperable with other similar cable systems.
TIM VINES: Option four. Reuse one of the tricks from earlier. And tell the tentacles you don't have an ORCID. And hope that they all die in abject rage. So let us switch over. To magical. We shall choose this one.
TIM VINES: Well, well, this looks good. OK. I think interoperability has been chosen here. As the way to destroy these tentacles.
HEATHER STAINES: However.
TIM VINES: However. We shall stop.
HEATHER STAINES: Alas. That was not a poll. It was a riddle. And the answer lies within the questions themselves. Tim can you display the questions again? Findable Accessible Interoperable Reusable. FAIR, FAIR is the answer.
TIM VINES: Yep. Indeed. [LAUGHS] With these words on their lips the party charges forward. Natasha calls out to the gods of open data. On a bridge, a pure metadata appears across the void. Fearless, our warriors wreak havoc on the tentacular beast. The brava severing the quivering mass of data fabrication with a single blow of her orange padlock. Breathless, they arrive on the other side and enter the castle of compliance.
TIM VINES: Yeey. [LAUGHS] The quest is complete. The heroines receive their awards. So bless Natasha, petabytes of open data. But Jessica of Elsevier, the grateful cries of audience in compliance with not one, not two, but three conflicting Open Access policies. And for our brava Ginny, the satisfaction that can only come from the absence of ethics and fractions.
TIM VINES: We leave our happy party there. In the bliss that only proper compliance with policy can bring. A return to you our audience and gratitude. For your wise guidance. And hand proceedings, over to the time viking Heather.
HEATHER STAINES: Thank you. A round of applause for our intrepid questers. Thank you. Sorry for the technical difficulties. But it was technically difficult. So.
TIM VINES: I've seen worse.
HEATHER STAINES: Thank you, everyone, for staying so close to time. And for L for participating in the polls. We have about 15 minutes left if you want to ask questions. This is Zoom meeting so you can unmute yourself to ask your question. If you are a very polite person. Not like a troll you can raise your hand. We can operate under any number of different scenarios here. I'll kick off with a question just to get everyone started.
HEATHER STAINES: Certainly it's clear if you didn't know before today, that communicating these policies and compliance is a complicated business. So what suggestions would you have to sort of streamline that communication? Jessica, could you talk a little bit about the strategies that you guys employ at the journal. To make sure that authors are aware.
JESSICA MILES: Sure Heather. So from the general perspective again we have communication with authors, Q&A support. As I said, we recently integrated a tool into our submission systems. That when authors are submitting the manuscript they're able to see based on the location of them and co-authors. What Open Access options are available, what the article processing charge would be.
JESSICA MILES: If there are any particular funder or institutional agreements that apply to them based on the data they provide. So I really think that the ability to capture this information at the submission process is probably the most straightforward way to streamline. So that everyone has the information earlier in the process and they can make an informed decision.
JESSICA MILES: And also reach out if they get information that is inconsistent with what they've seen in other sources.
HEATHER STAINES: Yes. Would our other questers like to comment on that? Ginny?
GINNY BARBOUR: Yeah. I think from the point of view of a university, I mean one of the things that is just a massive challenge is making academics, making sure they're aware of all the different types of policies. And make it important to them. I mean, so I think, as someone who's worked in a publisher and worked outside of academia but now sort of sits within the University, the magical ivory tower, it's just such-- it's so hard for academics nowadays to do the right thing.
GINNY BARBOUR: And I think it's really beholden on all of us to make sure that it's incredibly easy for them to comply or to have a route to sort of whatever policy, compliance they have to do. And that's one of the things that we work very hard within the committee that we are a part of the office for scholarly communication. Our job is to make academic's lives easier that's the number one thing to try and do they want to do the right thing.
HEATHER STAINES: OK. Natasha, go ahead.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Sorry. From my point of view it's about the consistency between the policies. So back in 2015, just around the time a lot of the data policies were introduced. Just in the UK tried to build a registry of General Data policies. And they couldn't do it because the policies were so different, that they just wouldn't even fit into a registry. And I think we've come a long way since then.
NATASHA SIMMONS: But that work that we've done on developing a framework to standardize the policies that comes from a lot of the work that Springer Nature did around this. On standardizing their own data policies. Because a publisher can have one policy but a general can have another. Can select which policy they want to introduce. And a number of editors have been scared of introducing a data general policy.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Because they think it might scare people off. Or it involves a lot of extra work, et cetera. All of which we've sort of answered in other talks really. It's not really the topic here. But I think it's really just getting consistency. And then, consistency between what the journals are asking for and what funders are asking for. Otherwise it's just too confusing for researchers to comply with.
HEATHER STAINES: And Natasha, you had a slide on data sharing and increases over time and with policy changes. Can you talk about some of the challenges around data sharing?
NATASHA SIMMONS: Yeah sure. Well, that's a whole topic of a whole other talk, isn't it really?
HEATHER STAINES: Another quest.
NATASHA SIMMONS: [LAUGHS] Well, we know that it's the elephant in the room and that it's not rewarded. You don't get tenure based on your data. And everybody knows that. However when you go to publish an article, you're asked to come up with a data availability statement. And in a number of the journals now you need to actually provide the data. And you need to put it in a repository.
NATASHA SIMMONS: So there's a contradiction there. The reward system is out of kilter with what is being asked by publishers and by funders. And I think that's a major challenge. Other challenges, I think if you look at the polls, researchers do want to share their data but a lot of them don't know how to do it. Or they have worries what if there's inconsistencies in it and somebody picks that up.
NATASHA SIMMONS: There's a lot of concerns that they have that need to be * before you feel comfortable publishing. And it's generally not factored into a funding grant. It's like, well, who is going to do this? Which data I collected? Which data should I share? I need help with this. And that's why some of the journal publishers like Springer Nature have help desks.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Or if you go to an institutional repository you'll get support from librarians at an institution to put the data in. I don't think it's as simple as just * it's easy. It's still a very challenging thing. Because we're talking about data across the spectrum from a sort of Humanities and Social science right through to the big pseudo-science. It's challenging.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Yeah.
HEATHER STAINES: I'd be remiss if I didn't ask Tim the enchanter to weigh in on challenges around data sharing.
TIM VINES: [LAUGHS] Yeah. My feeling is the-- there's a huge implementation gap that we have to cross between the wording of a general policy or the wording of a general advice. Share your data, do this and that. And the actions that we actually want the authors to do. And of course you can cross this as people have mentioned with help desks. And people who are on hand.
TIM VINES: But actually the researchers need to know that they need to do this. And then need to reach out. And so the approach that we're trying at Elsevier, is to use artificial intelligence to process research text. Find mentions of where the authors collect data. And then give them specific advice. Context specific advice about what they should do with that data set.
TIM VINES: So that in order to comply with policy X you need to put this data set in this repository. We give them advice based on which repositories that funders prefer or which the institution prefers and so on.
HEATHER STAINES: Great. And Jenny you touched on it a little bit. About some of the issues at universities around what types of research behaviors may be rewarded or unintentionally rewarding bad behavior. Do you think that's changing?
GINNY BARBOUR: Not as quickly as it should do. And I think that here, another elephant in the room to kind of elbow out Natasha's elephant, is the whole issue of University rankings, which is a huge problem. Particularly in Australia it's more challenging here than many other places. And that is not just driving the behavior of academics. Also driving the behavior of the people who run institutions. And that sort of trickles down into what they expect of their academics to do.
GINNY BARBOUR: So I think that coming back to this concept of rethinking the whole idea of research assessment, not just the work that * is doing but Hong Kong Principles on research assessment, which is one of the other issues-- things that I was involved with. Really we need a whole different framework for thinking about assessment and research. Otherwise we are simply going to be stuck into this vicious old cycle of only rewarding publications rather than sort of the papers we want.
HEATHER STAINES: And the group chose data citation as the answer to one of the challenges earlier. But how frequently are our folks actually citing data? Jessica, you have any insight on that?
JESSICA MILES: Not off the top of my head I will say actually starting tomorrow across all Cell Press journals we're implementing a data and code availability statement requirement. Which sort of implies not as frequently as we would like and not as standardized as we would like. And so this is something, to all the points that Natasha said, is a change that certainly is a long time coming. In that we're very happy to see in place.
HEATHER STAINES: Right. And do you see either Natasha or Jenny, people getting credit towards tenure and promotion for citations that go to their data? Or would researchers still point people to articles which is something that I've heard? Natasha.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Yeah, I think the article is still the key. Yep. Absolutely. There's no sort of Nobel Prize for data at this point in time. But I think it is interesting in COVID times that has put the spotlight on data. A lot more sort of like, a lot of people pouring over data on their screens every day. Sort of the most horrific data you really want to look at. But it's becoming increasingly clear I think to the public who invest in research, that data is really important.
NATASHA SIMMONS: And good quality data too.
GINNY BARBOUR: Yeah. And I--
HEATHER STAINES: Go ahead.
GINNY BARBOUR: Well, I would just say that the universities that are actually trying to put in data management plans. They are trying to address this issue of the invisibility of data as it were. And for example * faces its requirement at some universities to have a proper management plan in place. To do your-- Before you do your thesis, before you do your research, before you actually finalize.
GINNY BARBOUR: And I think that's a very positive step forward.
HEATHER STAINES: Yeah, Tim?
TIM VINES: I was going to throw in that we just submitted an application for grants to use natural language processing to chase after data citations. Where really only the context to the sentence can be used to work out. We download the data from X. And if X is just an acronym then there's no way for any traditional bibliometric tool to track that. And there's two groups that are sort of getting stiffed here. One, authors who have published data sets that are extensively reused.
TIM VINES: And then the other big institutions which have collected very large data sets. And I'm making them public. And they are trying to demonstrate what the value of these to their funding agency or whoever is paying for this data to be maintained and collected. When people say, Oh, we just use the MJFF or whatever, without giving them proper accreditation.
TIM VINES: So our hope is that this too will actually be able to track down such sentences. And then work out what the authors are talking about. And generate quasi-data citation off the back of that. [INAUDIBLE]
HEATHER STAINES: Natasha.
NATASHA SIMMONS: I just wanted to add in as well that there's some research that's been done to show that data availability through the citations does increase your citation count for your article. So I think that type of research is really important. Because it's part of the incentive for data sharing. So it's not a reward in terms of tenure but it's a reward in terms of the exposure of your research and its overall impact.
HEATHER STAINES: Yeah. And I think I've seen some feedback that, knowing that the data is available increases the trust in the science. Even if the person isn't going to be in a position themselves to go and try to replicate the study. Knowing that it's there does boost the trust. So we're getting close to time. So I want to thank our questers today. And Thanks all of you for helping them get through the various obstacles that they faced on their difficult journey.
HEATHER STAINES: We'd love to hear from you. Any feedback on the session like never do anything like this again or yes, we'd love to see it again, any time.
TIM VINES: Do this every time.
HEATHER STAINES: But be careful. You may find yourself pulled into a future quest. So thanks to SSP, for giving us this opportunity to speak with you today. We hope to see you later in the networking sessions. And come and join us in the exhibitor showcase later.
TIM VINES: Bye everyone.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Bye.
GINNY BARBOUR: Bye.
JESSICA MILES: Bye.
Segment:0 .
HEATHER STAINES: Maybe when you see us, you'll be happy you're not in the same room with us. All right, about 30 more seconds. Thank you guys for joining. I will draw your attention in the Pathable chat. There is a Slido link and code. There will be participant polls throughout the session. So if you want to participate in that, you can cue that up. It's in the Pathable chat.
HEATHER STAINES: And as soon as we kick off, I will also drop it into the chat here in Zoom. All right, I think we're slowing down just a bit. So we will get started. Welcome, everyone today. I'm Heather Staines. The moderator and time Viking for today's session, Walking The Rocky Road From Policy To Compliance : A Live Adventure.
HEATHER STAINES: Whether you're an author or a journal editorial office, a publisher or a funder, ensuring compliance with an ever changing set of policies and guidelines can seem like an impossible quest. Today, we present an actual quest. Join our intrepid adventurers as they travel from policy city, to the elusive and potentially mythical palace of researcher compliance. Can they defeat the three-headed troll of conflicting instructions?
HEATHER STAINES: Will the wizard of machine learning help them or hinder them? And if they're fortunate to reach compliance, will there be any treasure left to cover their costs? We've assembled a hearty band of adventurers with the necessary expertise in such areas as open access policies, journal submission guidelines, funder mandates and data sharing policies. You, our audience will be involved throughout.
HEATHER STAINES: We'll use the Slido instant polls to determine how our adventures take on various challenges. Look for the link in the Pathable Chat. I am your moderator and timekeeper. I'll be running point and watching for your questions. On the other side of our quest we'll have a serious discussion, on how stakeholders can choose, close the implementation gap between the good intentions of a policy and the goal of consistent and monitored compliance.
HEATHER STAINES: And now over to my illustrious colleague, enchanter extraordinaire, Tim.
HEATHER STAINES: Speaker 2: Oh, no. Just getting rid of my head horns. OK. First, let me introduce myself. I am a dungeon master. An entity akin to a guide, albeit for an imaginary realm. My role here is to set out the scene.
HEATHER STAINES: The waters in which I'll play a swim if you will. And step into the shoes along the way of the entities they meet and describe their actions. My colleague Heather, she's just explained, has her male fist on the stopwatch of this session. If your question turns into a 10 minute rambling comment, then hers is the wrath you will face. But now to brighter things. We brought together 3 fantastic people for this session.
HEATHER STAINES: And you're all here now as well. So we're going to slip into character and get on with it. Thank you all for joining me in policy city I have-- let us share this. I've invited you all here to join me on this quest. Because of your individual talents. Let me introduce you to your colleagues for this adventure. Our ranger, Jessica Myles, is from an obscure organization known only as Elsevier.
HEATHER STAINES: Rumor has it that she has tamed numerous strange beasts known as trends journals. And must struggle daily to keep up with their demands for fresh manuscripts to devour. I suggest-- her good side. A cleric, Natasha Simons, hails from the sacred order of the Australian Research Data Commons. The order devotes itself to making things open. Particularly data sets and research infrastructure.
HEATHER STAINES: But also cans and cannot. Beware for the order's influence grows throughout the land. Finally we're fortunate to be joined by our dashing brother, Ginny Barber. She has been the hidden hand behind many pivotal events in the land of science publishing. She was there when PLOS medicine was discovered. She ruled the committee for publication ethics for many years.
HEATHER STAINES: And looked in the shadows as the great guidelines of PRISMA and CONSORT were forged from community consensus. Even now, she flits between an identity at Queensland University of Technology. And a disguise as the Directory of Open Access Australasia. We start here in policy city. The shining example of the good intentions.
HEATHER STAINES: And how we want the world to be. Sadly, this vision only rests in the minds of its inhabitants. Invisible and weak unless others outside our gates believe in us and follow our guidance. The inhabitants of policy city have multiplied greatly in recent years. The discontent is growing across the land. Over whose policy takes precedence. More critically, the inhabitants of this land, simple, honest folk known as researchers are too busy tilling the Earth to heed our guidance.
HEATHER STAINES: Such that too many beautiful policies go unfulfilled and unloved. You three, chosen from amongst the best of us must journey out from policy city, to the castle of compliance. There you will find the treasure we all seek. The perfect match between our policies and the actions taken by our researcher folk. Only then, can this land be made whole.
HEATHER STAINES: You will meet challenges along the way. But in between there will be an opportunity for each of you to regale us with your hard won wisdom. I should note, that you do not journey entirely alone. Nay, by the magic of telepathy we are joined by a host of audience members. To act as witnesses for your deeds. You may see their innermost thoughts written out in the chat.
HEATHER STAINES: Or feel the nagging presence of a question in the Q&A. Fear not. For once we have reached the end of this journey these idle musings will be aired in the discussion session. These witness spirits also have a role to play. We will seek the guidance of crucial moments on our journey, with online polls. Do not fear the audience. Input from the audience can occasionally be helpful.
HEATHER STAINES: And the audience member, you can find the link to Slido in the Pathable chat. And in the Zoom chat. Our various polls will appear there in due course. And now, great adventurers, we must begin. We turn to you Jessica, of Elsevier.
JESSICA MILES: Thank you Tim for letting me accompany you on this quest. As Tim said I hail from an obscure land of Elsevier. And also within the region of Cell Press, another obscure land you might have heard of. I speak to how we do things in our land which might differ from other regions you may be familiar with. And so we start with this premise. If I can advance in this land.
JESSICA MILES: There we go. The university requires Green Open Access. Your funder requires Gold Open Access and the journal you're publishing in is subscription only. How should these be resolved? And obviously this is an epic quest. And so, perhaps these constraints are a little bit more, shall we say exaggerated than one might face in reality.
JESSICA MILES: But here is the three-headed troll. And here's how we will deal with the three heads. Indeed navigating Open Access mandates can feel like a labyrinth. But really it's about balancing rights and access options. Which I'll go through briefly again how we think about those from a typical perspective. So next slide. Thank you.
JESSICA MILES: We think about, generally, two categories in terms of capturing the full suite of options. Gold Open Access. And we use the term Gold Open Access it's really thinking about at the article level. A situation where published research is free for everyone to read and use immediately upon publication. And authors who choose Gold Open Access are given the choice, again within Cell Press and Elsevier, of two types of licenses.
JESSICA MILES: One for commercial purposes. One that restricts that. And then our second head of the troll is the Subscription option. Where the cost of publication are covered by readers who pay to receive access. And within that, we talk about Green Open Access. As a situation where authors can share their accepted manuscript on a non-commercial hosting platform.
JESSICA MILES: Typically an institutional repository. So sometimes this is called Repository based access, after a posting embargo period has elapsed. So with that lead up, now we get into the real crux of our journey, which is why is all of this so complex? And from a publisher perspective, we're really attempting to balance two different payment models. Both of which all authors want.
JESSICA MILES: The first, this Gold Open Access model, is a broadcasting model. And so, the funder, the institution or the authors is paying for dissemination of the article. And in this case, whoever is paying, is depending on publication output. Which is different from the Subcription model. Which we can think of as a receiving model. Where the reader is paying to obtain access and spend depends on reading needs.
JESSICA MILES: So we're not only balancing these two different types of models. We're also navigating the fraught waters of variable Open Access needs. Which can vary widely depending on the region, the country, the funder and the discipline. And so to make sense of all this complexity, we prioritize author choice and work with individuals and funders to offer tailored solutions.
JESSICA MILES: Time is running short on our quest. So I will not run through all of these solutions. But I will assure you that we have an Open Access journal home, for every author who wants one. We are fully, 500, Gold Open Access journals that offer complete Gold Open Access. The remaining titles offer Gold Open Access articles with subscription articles. We also have funding arrangements to help authors comply and liaise directly with funders.
JESSICA MILES: To make sure that they can comply and publish. We have a growing list of bespoke transformative agreements with countries and institutions. And we also set up author support services. For example our submission systems now have a feature where authors can see at the point of submission, what Open Access options are available at the journal that they're submitting to? And what the article processing charge for that option is.
JESSICA MILES: And we very, very much encourage authors to consider institutional and funding mandates at the time of submission. So to conclude. We're committed to helping authors continue to publish with us while complying with funder and institutional policies. So that we can all navigate the labyrinth together and play this three-headed troll.
JESSICA MILES:
HEATHER STAINES: Tim are you with us?
TIM VINES: Yes. My mouse is not there. My cursor just disappeared. OK. Not a moment after the ranger finishes speaking, the party hears a distant thumping. The cadence, can only be footsteps. But what could be so fast? The party's members stare around in horror. They stand in a wide valley with no cave or shelter in site.
TIM VINES: They gather closer, draw their weapons and prepare to face their doom. Moments later, the monstrosity comes into view. By some divine happenstance, the fiend is a physical embodiment of the very topics the ranger was just describing. It is a three-headed troll. Larger than a nonprofit publisher's headquarters.
TIM VINES: And slightly less attractive. The first head spots our quaking party. And roared something like, for any article covered by the university's policies, authors should provide the author's final version for inclusion in the university's Open Access repository. It's one good eye bulging, the second head yells out, coalition of organizations require that at least the author accepted manuscript open brackets AAM close brackets.
TIM VINES: Supported by their funding is published within a CC BY license with no embargo. The third head gnashes it's awful teeth. And the dreadful silence that follows growls, this funding agency does not have an account with our journal. And the authors are responsible for the entire Open Access charge.
TIM VINES: At this precise moment, the party seeks the collective wisdom of the audience. So if you switch over to Slido, the poll will be there. I will read out the questions. Should Jessica the ranger one, tell the troll she's posted articles of preprint? So it's already open access. Should she two, publish the articles of subscription only? And hope that neither the first or the second head notices.
TIM VINES: Should she three, hand over the party gold to have the article be published open access? Or option four, should she put the accepted version of the manuscript onto her institutional repository? And the time viking will show me when enough of you have registered your complaints and opinions in the poll. We will switch over.
HEATHER STAINES: Yes. We have the results coming in. Give it just a few more seconds. Get your vote in if you care about the author.
TIM VINES: The fates hang in the balance. The male will be eaten by the troll if you pick the wrong one, or else you have to stop.
HEATHER STAINES: OK. Tim do I need to hit a button or shouldn't it just show?
TIM VINES: The results I think, tell you what, will go there.
HEATHER STAINES: I don't see a button that says show results so.
TIM VINES: You don't see a button to show results?
HEATHER STAINES: No.
TIM VINES: Let me see if I can press the button to make sure the results.
HEATHER STAINES: Maybe when I close it nope. This questing is a dangerous business. Despite lots of planning.
TIM VINES: Despite lots of planning.
HEATHER STAINES: Your poll maybe errant.
TIM VINES: OK.
HEATHER STAINES: I can read it out if they can see.
TIM VINES: Yeah. Go ahead and read it out.
HEATHER STAINES: The winner with 61% option four put the accepted version of the manuscript on her institutional repository. A slightly lower margin 24%, wanted to hand over the party gold to have the article be published open access, which is a noble option. But may leave us with no gold at the end. So we'll see. Tim, on with the show.
TIM VINES: Jessica, our fearless ranger replete with advice from the audience, steps forward. And tells the troll that she has put the accepted version of her manuscript onto an institutional repository. The troll heads look momentarily stunned and turn to each other. The first matters to the third, Huh, I thought you said there was no way to meet all three criteria at the same time. The second roars, we're just going to have to let them go.
TIM VINES: The third chips in, I know. We'll jointly develop a set of incompatible guidelines and call them coalition troll. Looking somewhat humbled, the troll--
HEATHER STAINES: Tim, go back to the Slido.
TIM VINES: What? It's terrible.
HEATHER STAINES: Your acting just pulled it off. That was great. It was really great.
TIM VINES: [LAUGHS] But don't overreact. OK. So this is-- now we move on. The party, which breathes a sigh of relief, returns to Natasha, The cleric of open data.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Peace and blessings everyone. Peace and blessings. I'm here to bring you data. Next slide, please Tim. So have you ever felt that understanding policy is like taming a hippogriff? Research policy is a really weird animal that looks like it's being stitched together from ill-fitting parts.
NATASHA SIMMONS: There are funder policies, institutional policies, publishing policies, government policies, that are all pulled together. Sometimes in a complementary way. And sometimes in a misaligned or even contradictory way. And it can feel unknown, unpredictable, unsafe and volatile. And the result is that researchers are very often afraid of it.
NATASHA SIMMONS: And for good reason. Many have wondered, what am I being asked to do? Who's asking me to do it? Do I have to do it? When do I have to do it? How do I do it? What happens if I can't comply? And who can help me? So policy can be a challenging beast to tame.
NATASHA SIMMONS: But like Harry here, you need to make friends with it rather than aggravate it, with your distress or disapproval. Yes next slide please. So did you know that data now has a starring role in research policies? Previously overlooked like a hobbit as being small and unimportant to be discarded in favor of the glorious article, the availability of data is now critical to research.
NATASHA SIMMONS: And data availability statements are now widely required by journals as a condition of article publication. And funders are increasingly asking for similar statements to track the return on their investment dollars. So data availability or data sharing has a range of benefits which I'm sure you're all familiar with. But among the top of those are that it allows research results to be verified.
NATASHA SIMMONS: It supports reproducibility of research. And improves science because it drives better quality of research. Next slide please. Are you aware that research publisher policies are becoming increasingly FAIR. So that's an acronym that most of you will know by now. FAIR meaning, Findable Accessible Interoperable Reusable.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Which comes from the FAIR principles which were published in Nature back in around 2016. And have been growing in importance over these years. And if you look at some of the major publishing websites, you will see references to the FAIR data principles. For example, Wiley says research data is as important as the published article. When data is FAIR, the process becomes more efficient as you can access and analyze each other's findings and we use it to inform new findings.
NATASHA SIMMONS: And PLOS, says that they upload all supporting information files associated with an article, to the Figshare repository to increase compliance with the FAIR principles. Elsevier as well is committed to making data effective and developing better research data management processes and systems to support data sharing. And with their Mendeley platform, supporting the FAIR data principles as their solution.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Next slide, please. So like Frodo from Lord of the Rings you must submit. And to your quest, it is your fate, what must you do to comply is the question. So each journal has a different policy with regard to data sharing. And you need to become familiar with what that is. So here's an example from PLOS. Where PLOS journals require authors to make all data necessary to replicate their findings available without restriction at the time of publication.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Next slide, please Tim. So this is what it looks like when what you're generally being asked to do, is to produce or come up with a data availability statement. And there are four of these types of data availability statements. The first one is just not available. So no data is available at all which is quite common. There's also data available on request or similar.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Which is problematic because it doesn't really show that the data is available. And you can change from one institution to another and the email address doesn't work anymore. And that study was five years ago and I don't know where the data is. It's not in any accessible place you have to ask the authors generally on request. You have data availability with the paper and it's supplementary files.
NATASHA SIMMONS: And that is also problematic in some journals. Just actually, can axe supplementary files so the data is then lost. And it's also big management overhead for journals as well to do that. And the last one and there is a move from the publishers away from supplementary files and into the third one, which is data available in the repository as I mentioned.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Wiley and PLOS both having integrations with Figshare repository. And Elsevier having the Mendeley platform. It is the repository solution that's being looked at here. And that is the one that is most consistent with the FAIR data principles. Next slide, please Tim. So the data policy. It's important to note is actually changing data availability.
NATASHA SIMMONS: So you can see here this is a slide from the PLOS blog. And it shows you, the black line in the middle is the time that they implemented their data sharing policy. And before that they had no data availability statements. After that, they gave a little people about, I think it was almost a year to settle into that idea. So you see that first bar graph is different. But then you can actually see where people putting their data.
NATASHA SIMMONS: So the biggest section is still in supplementary section of journals. And I think it's still only around 20% in repositories. And that's the figure that I think we're going to see increase over the years to come. Next one please. OK. So to help this along, I collaborated with a number of the publishers through representatives of publishers.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Particularly Iain Hrynaszkiewicz, who's then the Head of Data Publishing at Springer Nature. To put together this General Data Policy Framework. To help journal editors to adopt a policy around data sharing. Because it is actually a very tricky situation to navigate there, to know what to be included in a policy. And we have a number of features that you can select from. And then on the right there it shows you-- you can select the strength of your policy.
NATASHA SIMMONS: And then pick the features you want to include. Next slide, please. So everything is now starting to line up. In that, we are looking to align what is happening with the publisher research data policies and the funder research data policies. Because it's difficult if funders are asking for one thing, and publishers are asking researchers for something else.
NATASHA SIMMONS: So through the Research Data Alliance, which is a global network to solve some data challenges, we are looking at taking that work that we did previously around the Master General guidelines, the framework. And working with the funders interest groups in research data alliance to align those policies. So you're very welcome to be involved in that discussion. It's available if you go to the Research Data Alliance website. And you look up the Data Policy Standardization Interest Group, you can join and just, you'll get updates on what is happening with that group.
NATASHA SIMMONS: And we hope that that will produce not such a hippogriff anymore. But more like a nice, streamlined Pegasus of policies. Where they're actually all complementary and nicely fitting together. And that's all from me. May your data live long and prosper.
TIM VINES: All right. Thank you very much Natasha. Our parties resolve returns after the cleric's inspiring tale. And they make quick progress out of the valley and up into the hills. Ahead a strange tower looms over their path, blocking our adventurous way. As they reach the wrought iron gates, Bless Natasha steps forward.
TIM VINES: And runs her hand over the metal. With a shudder, she realized that she recognizes these symbols. They're poorly formatted DOI's. What mad hand could create such a monstrosity! A part of his vision swims and with a lurch they find themselves suddenly inside a tower. Across the room stands a strangely wired wizard.
TIM VINES: With a crackle, the wizard turns to face them. More poor fools trying to reach the castle of compliance. What makes you think your feeble bodies can make it there without my help? The road is paved with millions of research outputs. And more appear every day. No. You must pay tribute to me.
TIM VINES: For I am the great wizard of machine actionable metadata. Without my help, every path you take from here, generates a 404 error. The party huddles around. What offering should they make to satisfy the wizard of machine actionable metadata? Should they try to defeat it instead? Dear audience, they cast their beseeching eyes to you. Poll two is now open on Slido.
TIM VINES: Should read the options. What should Natasha do here? The party could promise to label every single one of their possessions with an RRID. Number two, they can ask the wizard, if it's OK if only one of the party has an ORCID number and hope it explodes. They could, number three, vow to henceforth, always add a data citation into their references section.
TIM VINES: Or number four, they could apologize profusely for not acknowledging the funding for this expedition. But explain that a stolen dragon award, was not in the FAIR ref list. There was no way to get into it. Slide. Let's check in with the time viking to see what the response rate is like.
HEATHER STAINES: Their responses are coming in. And I'm told that if Tim the enchanter votes--
TIM VINES: Oh-- [INTERPOSING VOICES]
HEATHER STAINES: The results.
TIM VINES: --let us test this.
HEATHER STAINES: At the risk of adding one more technological thing in and causing everything to explode.
TIM VINES: I am going to make the wizard explode. No. OK.
HEATHER STAINES: Oh it's still coming in. It's still coming in. Get your votes in under the wire. OK. I think we're going to call it for time. By a margin. Go ahead, Tim.
TIM VINES: OK. The RRID just made a sudden surge. But I think it's stable. I think it's stable now. OK.
HEATHER STAINES: And the winner, vowed to henceforth always add a data citation to their reference section. [CHEERS]
TIM VINES: All right. Natasha, the cleric of open data steps forward and tells the wizard of machine actionable metadata, in a surprisingly earnest voice, that it will always, always, henceforth annotate a citation to the references section. The wizard of machine actionable metadata, stops it's quite hum for a moment.
TIM VINES: And cock it's head towards the party. Really do that? Actually, really, do that? And now? Rather than sometime in the next 40 years. Now, I know what it feels like when somebody loves me. The castle goes dark around them. There's another lurch in reality and the party finds themselves back on the same path.
TIM VINES: The tower is gone. And the walls of a castle are just about visible in the distance. The exhausted party sits beside the road and turns to the brava Ginny. What a story.
GINNY BARBOUR: Thank you to my noble questers. Thank you especially to all of you for joining me. I come from the great southern land where the dawn is just breaking. I come to tell you a story about how academics can be challenged. Can work with to support integrity in publishing. This is a bloody quest and we will tackle this challenge together. Next slide Tim.
GINNY BARBOUR: First we know that publishing is in conflict with integrity. And we know that much blood is spilt in the ivory towers of academia. As unfortunate academics, work daily to confront the challenges of how to publish as much as possible. And to how to keep their integrity. Next slide. But before we start, we seek your advice.
GINNY BARBOUR: We will be developing a magical word cloud as I speak. And as we go through, we will challenge-- look at this at the end. So my question to all of you, boys and people from around the globe, is what do you think needs to be changed to increase integrity in publishing? And the magical word cloud will appear at the end. Thank you Tim.
GINNY BARBOUR:
TIM VINES: The word cloud, Heather will be making the word cloud available on Slido right now.
HEATHER STAINES: Yes the word cloud is available on Slido. And the results are trickling in.
TIM VINES: OK.
GINNY BARBOUR: We will look at it--
TIM VINES: Ginny, would you like to look this at the end or should we look at this--
GINNY BARBOUR: Yeah. We will reveal it at the end I think. Can we do that?
HEATHER STAINES: Right now we have a clear winner. But lots of things are coming in.
GINNY BARBOUR: Oh OK. Well this might magically change my quest. But [LAUGHS] I'll go on regardless.
TIM VINES: Yeah, right.
HEATHER STAINES: All right. Tim, do you want to show the results? We've got a winner.
TIM VINES: No. We'll show it at the end of Ginny's talk, right?
HEATHER STAINES: OK. Yeah, let's do that.
TIM VINES: All right.
GINNY BARBOUR: All right next slide, thank you. All right. So I'm sure that everyone is-- No, back, back, back. I think my magic is failing here or at least my or my systems are going crazy. All right. It can feel like it's a fight between publishing and integrity. We all know what it's like.
GINNY BARBOUR: We want to do the best that we can. We want researchers to do the best they can. But they have impossible things that they have to challenge every day. Next slide. And it's because of this circle of death that we have poor academics are stuck into. So just as I speak if you could click through. So first off we know that publications are prioritized.
GINNY BARBOUR: We have this terrible system. Where only the magic gold is given for the final output of research publications. Is the only things that are awarded. Even worse than that, universities may actually have to publish a certain number of publications to qualify as universities. And we know that they require publication in certain journals.
GINNY BARBOUR: The dreaded quartiles or even deciles that we now know that academics are kept to. Next slide. And that leads to pressure to publish. And this is probably one of the biggest challenges that we face as a community. Cutting corners with data collection. Only publishing positive results. Poorly written publications.
GINNY BARBOUR: And the dreaded P-hacking that we see constantly in publications that come out regularly. And even worse than that, we know that from time to time speed can be of the essence. We've seen a terrible rise in increased numbers of low quality journals. And although much is made of the deceptive nature of these journals, the truth is that for a number of academics they serve a purpose.
GINNY BARBOUR: Which is that they serve a purpose of rapid publication. And so academics are using them on occasion to get published when they have no choice to-- other than to get their research out very quickly. And the same is true for conferences, which are also a curse on this whole system. Next. And so finally, we have a blind application of metrics. Quantitative over qualitative.
GINNY BARBOUR: Particularly favors established disciplines. And is highly-- tilts academic behaviour to specific ways. And so what we find is that the route to publication wins over integrity over time. So next slide. But in fact, just like this poor troll who is supporting a bridge not actually trying to bring it down, we know that integrity can support quality publishing.
GINNY BARBOUR: But how is that? Do not look at his face. He is doing the great job of holding up that bridge of supporting quality publishing. He's not trying to bring it down. Next slide. And that's especially true if we can address the biases in publishing. And so from the DORA-- from the great work of DORA this golden manuscript has addressed a whole load of issues.
GINNY BARBOUR: Challenges to think about the biases that we all bring to publishing. And the ones that I just like to bring to your attention first of all are the Matthew effect. The idea that funds flow to those that already have them. The concept of the halo effect. That we get positive impressions of individuals already influence our overall outcome. The availability that we go with anecdotes rather than evidence based every time.
GINNY BARBOUR: Which leads to probably the biggest problem of all which is the overall tendency to keep the status quo. Next slide. I see a magic cat has appeared in the background of one of our audience. So what can we do to change the recipe to support integrity and quality in publishing? Next slide.
GINNY BARBOUR: My suggestion to you is that it's all based around being open. So what does that look like? So let's start with the methods. Open source. We have increased transparency for methodology. Open methods allow us to, next slide master, allow all activities across the research lifecycle to be rewarded and valued.
GINNY BARBOUR: Open data. The magical open data of my colleague ensures that we have less emphasis on positive results. Open-- Oops. Oh what's happened?
HEATHER STAINES: No you're good. Keep going.
GINNY BARBOUR: Oh I've lost the slides.
HEATHER STAINES: OK. We're on the same slide--
GINNY BARBOUR: Oh. OK.
HEATHER STAINES: In support of publishing, supported.
GINNY BARBOUR: Apologies. I can't see the slides. All right I'll keep going. [LAUGHS] I can do this. Yeah. So the increased diversity of Open Access allows increased diversity of publishing. Open Education means that we have reward for other academic activities. And finally Open Peer Review.
GINNY BARBOUR: Means that we can have quality research outputs is supported through a whole new methodology. Which just does not lead to, the ways of the past where we just think of only one way of peer review. And so my final slide is that we can in the end have publication and integrity to be in harmony.
HEATHER STAINES: Great. Tim can you share the results of the word cloud? You may have to put in a word in order to get the results to appear for you. Or I can read them out.
TIM VINES: Everyone see the word cloud? Transparency comes through. Ginny can you see it?
GINNY BARBOUR: I can. Excellent. I'm delighted with the results. My magic powers clearly worked across oceans to influence everyone's behavior.
TIM VINES: Absolutely. Everyone knew ahead of time. Brilliant. OK. Let's see if we can manoeuvre back. The point-- OK. To adventure part. Up to a few more hours of walking, the castle of compliance now stands before our intrepid party.
TIM VINES: Unfortunately a chasm, containing purple tentacles, also stands before them. Between them and the castle. As the party stands and stares into the morass, a voice whispers to them on the wind. Oh brave adventurers. Your prize awaits at the castle of compliance. It is so close, you can almost touch it.
TIM VINES: Let us, as tentacles carry you across. At this moment the tentacles themselves reach forward and beckon, enticingly to the party. Swooping low and shaping themselves into comfortable seats. A brave ranger and cleric, step forward. But Ginny the brava drags them back. Her keen eyes have spotted the names on these tentacles. And her key knows to sniff out a trick.
TIM VINES: These tentacles do indeed offer an easy way forward. But that way is also perilous. One tentacle, a salami slicing, which bodes well for lunch. But is a bane to academic publishing. The research is in its grip, always striving to find the smallest possible publishable unit. Another tentacle is P-hacking. The cruel art of torturing data with statistics until it says whatever you want it to say.
TIM VINES: The third is plagiarism. The dank cousin of text copying. Where ideas and words are torn from the author's breast and made to toil in another's research manuscript. The last named tentacle, and perhaps the most terrible is data fabrication. Which squeezes researchers until all their hesitations are gone. And they change their data to fit the story.
TIM VINES: Now that the false promise of a quick and easy ride across the chasm has been exposed for the lie it is, the party draws back and consults. Once again they ask the audience for help. How should the party cross the chasm? And Heather the time viking, at this moment is activating the poll.
HEATHER STAINES: As we speak.
TIM VINES: As we speak. Option one. We try to find a narrower spot, jump across. Option two. The party tries to copy the Lord of the Rings and uses eagles to access the castle. Option three. Natasha should beseech the gods of open data to strike down the tentacles. On the grounds that they're not interoperable with other similar cable systems.
TIM VINES: Option four. Reuse one of the tricks from earlier. And tell the tentacles you don't have an ORCID. And hope that they all die in abject rage. So let us switch over. To magical. We shall choose this one.
TIM VINES: Well, well, this looks good. OK. I think interoperability has been chosen here. As the way to destroy these tentacles.
HEATHER STAINES: However.
TIM VINES: However. We shall stop.
HEATHER STAINES: Alas. That was not a poll. It was a riddle. And the answer lies within the questions themselves. Tim can you display the questions again? Findable Accessible Interoperable Reusable. FAIR, FAIR is the answer.
TIM VINES: Yep. Indeed. [LAUGHS] With these words on their lips the party charges forward. Natasha calls out to the gods of open data. On a bridge, a pure metadata appears across the void. Fearless, our warriors wreak havoc on the tentacular beast. The brava severing the quivering mass of data fabrication with a single blow of her orange padlock. Breathless, they arrive on the other side and enter the castle of compliance.
TIM VINES: Yeey. [LAUGHS] The quest is complete. The heroines receive their awards. So bless Natasha, petabytes of open data. But Jessica of Elsevier, the grateful cries of audience in compliance with not one, not two, but three conflicting Open Access policies. And for our brava Ginny, the satisfaction that can only come from the absence of ethics and fractions.
TIM VINES: We leave our happy party there. In the bliss that only proper compliance with policy can bring. A return to you our audience and gratitude. For your wise guidance. And hand proceedings, over to the time viking Heather.
HEATHER STAINES: Thank you. A round of applause for our intrepid questers. Thank you. Sorry for the technical difficulties. But it was technically difficult. So.
TIM VINES: I've seen worse.
HEATHER STAINES: Thank you, everyone, for staying so close to time. And for L for participating in the polls. We have about 15 minutes left if you want to ask questions. This is Zoom meeting so you can unmute yourself to ask your question. If you are a very polite person. Not like a troll you can raise your hand. We can operate under any number of different scenarios here. I'll kick off with a question just to get everyone started.
HEATHER STAINES: Certainly it's clear if you didn't know before today, that communicating these policies and compliance is a complicated business. So what suggestions would you have to sort of streamline that communication? Jessica, could you talk a little bit about the strategies that you guys employ at the journal. To make sure that authors are aware.
JESSICA MILES: Sure Heather. So from the general perspective again we have communication with authors, Q&A support. As I said, we recently integrated a tool into our submission systems. That when authors are submitting the manuscript they're able to see based on the location of them and co-authors. What Open Access options are available, what the article processing charge would be.
JESSICA MILES: If there are any particular funder or institutional agreements that apply to them based on the data they provide. So I really think that the ability to capture this information at the submission process is probably the most straightforward way to streamline. So that everyone has the information earlier in the process and they can make an informed decision.
JESSICA MILES: And also reach out if they get information that is inconsistent with what they've seen in other sources.
HEATHER STAINES: Yes. Would our other questers like to comment on that? Ginny?
GINNY BARBOUR: Yeah. I think from the point of view of a university, I mean one of the things that is just a massive challenge is making academics, making sure they're aware of all the different types of policies. And make it important to them. I mean, so I think, as someone who's worked in a publisher and worked outside of academia but now sort of sits within the University, the magical ivory tower, it's just such-- it's so hard for academics nowadays to do the right thing.
GINNY BARBOUR: And I think it's really beholden on all of us to make sure that it's incredibly easy for them to comply or to have a route to sort of whatever policy, compliance they have to do. And that's one of the things that we work very hard within the committee that we are a part of the office for scholarly communication. Our job is to make academic's lives easier that's the number one thing to try and do they want to do the right thing.
HEATHER STAINES: OK. Natasha, go ahead.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Sorry. From my point of view it's about the consistency between the policies. So back in 2015, just around the time a lot of the data policies were introduced. Just in the UK tried to build a registry of General Data policies. And they couldn't do it because the policies were so different, that they just wouldn't even fit into a registry. And I think we've come a long way since then.
NATASHA SIMMONS: But that work that we've done on developing a framework to standardize the policies that comes from a lot of the work that Springer Nature did around this. On standardizing their own data policies. Because a publisher can have one policy but a general can have another. Can select which policy they want to introduce. And a number of editors have been scared of introducing a data general policy.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Because they think it might scare people off. Or it involves a lot of extra work, et cetera. All of which we've sort of answered in other talks really. It's not really the topic here. But I think it's really just getting consistency. And then, consistency between what the journals are asking for and what funders are asking for. Otherwise it's just too confusing for researchers to comply with.
HEATHER STAINES: And Natasha, you had a slide on data sharing and increases over time and with policy changes. Can you talk about some of the challenges around data sharing?
NATASHA SIMMONS: Yeah sure. Well, that's a whole topic of a whole other talk, isn't it really?
HEATHER STAINES: Another quest.
NATASHA SIMMONS: [LAUGHS] Well, we know that it's the elephant in the room and that it's not rewarded. You don't get tenure based on your data. And everybody knows that. However when you go to publish an article, you're asked to come up with a data availability statement. And in a number of the journals now you need to actually provide the data. And you need to put it in a repository.
NATASHA SIMMONS: So there's a contradiction there. The reward system is out of kilter with what is being asked by publishers and by funders. And I think that's a major challenge. Other challenges, I think if you look at the polls, researchers do want to share their data but a lot of them don't know how to do it. Or they have worries what if there's inconsistencies in it and somebody picks that up.
NATASHA SIMMONS: There's a lot of concerns that they have that need to be * before you feel comfortable publishing. And it's generally not factored into a funding grant. It's like, well, who is going to do this? Which data I collected? Which data should I share? I need help with this. And that's why some of the journal publishers like Springer Nature have help desks.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Or if you go to an institutional repository you'll get support from librarians at an institution to put the data in. I don't think it's as simple as just * it's easy. It's still a very challenging thing. Because we're talking about data across the spectrum from a sort of Humanities and Social science right through to the big pseudo-science. It's challenging.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Yeah.
HEATHER STAINES: I'd be remiss if I didn't ask Tim the enchanter to weigh in on challenges around data sharing.
TIM VINES: [LAUGHS] Yeah. My feeling is the-- there's a huge implementation gap that we have to cross between the wording of a general policy or the wording of a general advice. Share your data, do this and that. And the actions that we actually want the authors to do. And of course you can cross this as people have mentioned with help desks. And people who are on hand.
TIM VINES: But actually the researchers need to know that they need to do this. And then need to reach out. And so the approach that we're trying at Elsevier, is to use artificial intelligence to process research text. Find mentions of where the authors collect data. And then give them specific advice. Context specific advice about what they should do with that data set.
TIM VINES: So that in order to comply with policy X you need to put this data set in this repository. We give them advice based on which repositories that funders prefer or which the institution prefers and so on.
HEATHER STAINES: Great. And Jenny you touched on it a little bit. About some of the issues at universities around what types of research behaviors may be rewarded or unintentionally rewarding bad behavior. Do you think that's changing?
GINNY BARBOUR: Not as quickly as it should do. And I think that here, another elephant in the room to kind of elbow out Natasha's elephant, is the whole issue of University rankings, which is a huge problem. Particularly in Australia it's more challenging here than many other places. And that is not just driving the behavior of academics. Also driving the behavior of the people who run institutions. And that sort of trickles down into what they expect of their academics to do.
GINNY BARBOUR: So I think that coming back to this concept of rethinking the whole idea of research assessment, not just the work that * is doing but Hong Kong Principles on research assessment, which is one of the other issues-- things that I was involved with. Really we need a whole different framework for thinking about assessment and research. Otherwise we are simply going to be stuck into this vicious old cycle of only rewarding publications rather than sort of the papers we want.
HEATHER STAINES: And the group chose data citation as the answer to one of the challenges earlier. But how frequently are our folks actually citing data? Jessica, you have any insight on that?
JESSICA MILES: Not off the top of my head I will say actually starting tomorrow across all Cell Press journals we're implementing a data and code availability statement requirement. Which sort of implies not as frequently as we would like and not as standardized as we would like. And so this is something, to all the points that Natasha said, is a change that certainly is a long time coming. In that we're very happy to see in place.
HEATHER STAINES: Right. And do you see either Natasha or Jenny, people getting credit towards tenure and promotion for citations that go to their data? Or would researchers still point people to articles which is something that I've heard? Natasha.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Yeah, I think the article is still the key. Yep. Absolutely. There's no sort of Nobel Prize for data at this point in time. But I think it is interesting in COVID times that has put the spotlight on data. A lot more sort of like, a lot of people pouring over data on their screens every day. Sort of the most horrific data you really want to look at. But it's becoming increasingly clear I think to the public who invest in research, that data is really important.
NATASHA SIMMONS: And good quality data too.
GINNY BARBOUR: Yeah. And I--
HEATHER STAINES: Go ahead.
GINNY BARBOUR: Well, I would just say that the universities that are actually trying to put in data management plans. They are trying to address this issue of the invisibility of data as it were. And for example * faces its requirement at some universities to have a proper management plan in place. To do your-- Before you do your thesis, before you do your research, before you actually finalize.
GINNY BARBOUR: And I think that's a very positive step forward.
HEATHER STAINES: Yeah, Tim?
TIM VINES: I was going to throw in that we just submitted an application for grants to use natural language processing to chase after data citations. Where really only the context to the sentence can be used to work out. We download the data from X. And if X is just an acronym then there's no way for any traditional bibliometric tool to track that. And there's two groups that are sort of getting stiffed here. One, authors who have published data sets that are extensively reused.
TIM VINES: And then the other big institutions which have collected very large data sets. And I'm making them public. And they are trying to demonstrate what the value of these to their funding agency or whoever is paying for this data to be maintained and collected. When people say, Oh, we just use the MJFF or whatever, without giving them proper accreditation.
TIM VINES: So our hope is that this too will actually be able to track down such sentences. And then work out what the authors are talking about. And generate quasi-data citation off the back of that. [INAUDIBLE]
HEATHER STAINES: Natasha.
NATASHA SIMMONS: I just wanted to add in as well that there's some research that's been done to show that data availability through the citations does increase your citation count for your article. So I think that type of research is really important. Because it's part of the incentive for data sharing. So it's not a reward in terms of tenure but it's a reward in terms of the exposure of your research and its overall impact.
HEATHER STAINES: Yeah. And I think I've seen some feedback that, knowing that the data is available increases the trust in the science. Even if the person isn't going to be in a position themselves to go and try to replicate the study. Knowing that it's there does boost the trust. So we're getting close to time. So I want to thank our questers today. And Thanks all of you for helping them get through the various obstacles that they faced on their difficult journey.
HEATHER STAINES: We'd love to hear from you. Any feedback on the session like never do anything like this again or yes, we'd love to see it again, any time.
TIM VINES: Do this every time.
HEATHER STAINES: But be careful. You may find yourself pulled into a future quest. So thanks to SSP, for giving us this opportunity to speak with you today. We hope to see you later in the networking sessions. And come and join us in the exhibitor showcase later.
TIM VINES: Bye everyone.
NATASHA SIMMONS: Bye.
GINNY BARBOUR: Bye.
JESSICA MILES: Bye.
Form Title Download
Transcript
Form Title Bookmark
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Share
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Form Title Accessibility and Keyboard Shortcuts
The cadmore media player is a professional video and audio player experience designed to deliver media as well as relevant transcript, segmentation, and metadata. On the screen is a traditional html video player with buttons such as play, pause, forward, captioning, language and play speed selection and more. Adjacent to the video player are generally tabs, one of which shows a scrolling transcript of the video and the other shows any segmentation of the media, sometimes referred to as chapters. At the top of the video is a menu bar containing an Explore button and Tools button. The Explore button allows you to dig deeper into the video by opening up an explore dialog which contains tabs for a visual navigation of the video using thumbnails, an about tab which contains rich metadata about the media, a segments tab which contains further information about the video, and a related tab which contains links to other media related to this media. The tools button opens a menu with options for sharing the media on social media, creating bookmarking links, creating embed codes for your website, generating citations, and more.
Keyboard Shortcuts
Keyboard shortcuts only work while you are in forms mode. By entering forms mode, you will be able to quickly access portions of the media player with single key commands.
Spacebar: Play/Pause Toggle
I: Info Menu,
O: Tools Menu
T: Transcript Tab,
S: Segments Tab
F: Forward 15,
R: Rewind 15
L: Languages,
P: Playspeed
M: Mute Toggle,
V: Volume Bar
N: Video Only Toggle,
B: Full Screen Toggle
C: Captions Toggle
Escape: Closes dialogs and menus / Exits Player
Z: Next Transcript Chapter
X: Previous Transcript Chapter
Q: Next Transcript Paragraph
W: Previous Transcript Paragraph
Entire Media
Segment(s)
Custom Clip
Start At:
End At:
Embed Size
-
You Size - Responsive
-
We Size - Responsive
-
Picture Overlay Popup
-
400 x 225
-
512 x 288
-
400 x 700
-
768 x 1024
-
1024 x 512
-
1280 x 608
Form Title Cite
No citation provided.
Info
Segments
Related
Thumbnails
Exit Clip Mode
You have requested to see a portion of the video outside of the clip.
Click OK to switch to the full video or click if you would like to stay inside the clip. You can always go back to the clip with Tools and Clip Mode