Show me the data!
Header

There are a lot of really interesting works being published over at Research Ideas and Outcomes (RIO).  If you aren’t already following the updates you can do so via RSS, Twitter, or via email (scroll to the bottom for sign-up).

In this post I’m going to discuss why Chad Hammond’s contribution is so remarkable and why it could represent an exciting model for a more transparent and more immediate future of scholarly communications.

Version1

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, what’s special?

Well, to state the obvious first: it’s a grant proposal, not a research article. RIO Journal has published quite a lot of research proposals now, it’s becoming a real strength of the journal. But that’s not the really interesting thing about it. The really cool thing is that Chad published this grant proposal with RIO before it was submitted it to the funder (Canadian Institutes of Health Research) for evaluation.

You’ll see the publication date of Version 1 of the work is 24th March 2016. Pleasingly, after publication in RIO Chad’s proposal was evaluated by CIHR and awarded research funding. Chad received news of this in late April:

…and the story gets even better from here because thanks to RIO’s unique technology called ARPHA, Chad was able to re-import his published article back into editing mode, to update the proposal to acknowledge that it had been funded:

This proposal was submitted to and received funding from the annual Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) competition for postdoctoral fellowships.

The updated proposal was then checked by the editorial team and republished as an updated version of the original proposal: Version 2, making-use of CrossMark technology to formally link the two versions and to make sure readers are always made aware if a newer version of the work exists. Chad’s updated proposal now has a little ‘Funded’ button appended to it (see below), to indicate that this proposal has been successfully funded. We hope to see many more such successfully funded proposals published at RIO.

Title and metadata

 

 

With permission given, Chad was also able to supply some of the reviewer comments passed to him from CIHR reviewers as supplementary data to the updated Version 2 proposal. These will undoubtedly provide invaluable insight into reviewing processes for many.

Finally, for funders and publishing-tech geeks: you should really take note of the lovely machine-readable XML-formatted version of Chad’s proposal. Pensoft has machine-readable XML output as standard, not just PDF and HTML. Funding agencies around the world would do well to think closely about the value of having XML-formatted machine-readable grant proposal submissions. There’s serious value to this and I think it’s something we’ll see more of in the future. Pensoft is actively looking to work with funders to develop further these ideas and approaches for genuinely adding-value to scholarly communications.
RIO is truly an innovative journal don’t you think?
:)

References

version 1:
Hammond C (2016) Widening the circle of care: An arts-based, participatory dialogue with stakeholders on cancer care for First Nations, Inuit,and Métis peoples in Ontario, Canada. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8615. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e8615

version 2:
Hammond C (2016) Widening the circle of care: An arts-based, participatory dialogue with stakeholders on cancer care for First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples in Ontario, Canada. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e9115. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e9115

Just a quick update to let you know how the new Research Ideas and Outcomes (RIO) journal is going. You may remember I wrote a blog post here explaining my enthusiasm for this new journal. I’m delighted to say it is exceeding my expectations.

After announcing the launch with coverage in Science (AAAS) News, Nature News, and Times Higher Education amongst others, RIO has now published many interesting and highly novel outputs.

My choice of the word ‘outputs’ rather than ‘articles’ is very deliberate. RIO is a sophisticated platform that publishes more than just articles. Central to the ethos of the journal is that academia should publish entire research cycles, not just traditional research articles. So in our first 24 published outputs there is impressive diversity on show. Below is a breakdown of these published outputs by type:

One Editorial

  • Mietchen D, Mounce R, Penev L (2015) Publishing the research process. Research Ideas and Outcomes 1: e7547. doi: 10.3897/rio.1.e7547

Ten Grant Proposals

  • Martone M, Murray-Rust P, Molloy J, Arrow T, MacGillivray M, Kittel C, Kasberger S, Steel G, Oppenheim C, Ranganathan A, Tennant J, Udell J (2016) ContentMine/Hypothes.is Proposal. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8424.doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e8424
  • Susi T (2015) Heteroatom quantum corrals and nanoplasmonics in graphene (HeQuCoG). Research Ideas and Outcomes 1: e7479. doi: 10.3897/rio.1.e7479
  • Simms S, Jones S, Ashley K, Ribeiro M, Chodacki J, Abrams S, Strong M (2016) Roadmap: A Research Data Management Advisory Platform. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8649. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e8649
  • Mietchen D, Hagedorn G, Willighagen E, Rico M, Gómez-Pérez A, Aibar E, Rafes K, Germain C, Dunning A, Pintscher L, Kinzler D (2015) Enabling Open Science: Wikidata for Research (Wiki4R). Research Ideas and Outcomes 1: e7573. doi: 10.3897/rio.1.e7573
  • Wagner S (2015) Continuous and Focused Developer Feedback on Software Quality (CoFoDeF) . Research Ideas and Outcomes 1: e7576.doi: 10.3897/rio.1.e7576
  • Hartgerink C, George S (2015) Problematic trial detection in ClinicalTrials.gov. Research Ideas and Outcomes 1: e7462. doi: 10.3897/rio.1.e7462
  • Hammond C (2016) Widening the circle of care: An arts-based, participatory dialogue with stakeholders on cancer care for First Nations, Inuit,and Métis peoples in Ontario, Canada. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8615. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e8615
  • Tóth J (2016) Tools of Persuasion in Visual Advertisements at Maltese Sites of Cultural Tourism: A Social Science Analysis. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8726. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e8726
  • Wojnarski M, Hanken Kurtz D (2016) Paperity Central: An Open Catalog of All Scholarly Literature. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8462.doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e8462
  • Koureas D, Hardisty A, Vos R, Agosti D, Arvanitidis C, Bogatencov P, Buttigieg P, de Jong Y, Horvath F, Gkoutos G, Groom Q, Kliment T, Kõljalg U, Manakos I, Marcer A, Marhold K, Morse D, Mergen P, Penev L, Pettersson L, Svenning J, van de Putte A, Smith V (2016) Unifying European Biodiversity Informatics (BioUnify). Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e7787.doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e7787

One PhD Project Plan

  • Senderov V, Penev L (2016) The Open Biodiversity Knowledge Management System in Scholarly Publishing. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e7757.doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e7757

Two Data Management Plans

  • Fisher J, Nading A (2016) A Political Ecology of Value: A Cohort-Based Ethnography of the Environmental Turn in Nicaraguan Urban Social Policy. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8720. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e8720
  • Pannell J (2016) Data Management Plan for PhD Thesis “Climatic Limitation of Alien Weeds in New Zealand: Enhancing Species Distribution Models with Field Data”. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8664. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e8664

Four Research Ideas

  • Gordon R (2016) Partial synchronization of the colonial diatom Bacillaria “paradoxa”. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e7869. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e7869
  • Vyshedskiy A, Dunn R (2015) Mental synthesis involves the synchronization of independent neuronal ensembles. Research Ideas and Outcomes 1: e7642.doi: 10.3897/rio.1.e7642
  • Zou Y (2015) Determining the direction of a gamma-ray burst’s jet in its host galaxy. Research Ideas and Outcomes 1: e7506. doi: 10.3897/rio.1.e7506
  • Page R (2016) Towards a biodiversity knowledge graph. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8767. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e8767

One Methods article

  • Abdullah N (2016) Vertical-Horizontal Regulated Soilless Farming via Advanced Hydroponics for Domestic Food Production in Doha, Qatar. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8134. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e8134

One Research article

  • Chen R, Shen T, Tsai K, Hu C (2016) Pericardial window operation for malignant pericardial effusion may have worse outcomes for lung cancer than the other cancers. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8758.doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e8758

Three Workshop Reports

  • Wetzel F, Hoffmann A, Häuser C, Vohland K (2016) 1st EU BON Stakeholder Roundtable (Brussels, Belgium): Biodiversity and Requirements for Policy. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8600. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e8600
  • Vohland K, Häuser C, Regan E, Hoffmann A, Wetzel F (2016) 2nd EU BON Stakeholder Roundtable (Berlin, Germany): How can a European biodiversity network support citizen science? Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8616.doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e8616
  • Vohland K, Hoffmann A, Underwood E, Weatherdon L, Bonet F, Häuser C, Wetzel F (2016) 3rd EU BON Stakeholder Roundtable (Granada, Spain): Biodiversity data workflow from data mobilization to practice. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8622. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e8622

One Project Report

  • Egloff W, Agosti D, Patterson D, Hoffmann A, Mietchen D, Kishor P, Penev L (2016) Data Policy Recommendations for Biodiversity Data. EU BON Project Report. Research Ideas and Outcomes 2: e8458. doi: 10.3897/rio.2.e8458

Sustainable Development Goals

Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Another feature of RIO is that all articles are labelled with their relevant Sustainable Development Goals. Interestingly, RIO has attracted 13 outputs which relate to SDG number 9: ‘Industry, Innovation and Infrastructure’. I take this as a great compliment to the journal – I infer from this that authors interested in true innovation and scholarly infrastructure are clearly attracted to this journal.

Openly Published Data Management Plans (DMPs)

I pushed hard to make sure Data Management Plans were included as their own distinct output type in RIO, so I’m really glad to see two exemplar DMPs being published, as well as the Roadmap research proposal which also relates to DMPs. A lot of US and UK researchers see funder-imposed DMPs as a bureaucratic checkbox exercise of little value to them. I hope that by being able to publish a DMP, researchers will see the point-of-it a little more – the documents will suddenly have value and meaning beyond the grant proposal process because other people can and will read them.

We have more DMPs in the pipeline too, so keep watching!

If you want to keep up to date with everything that gets published at RIO; follow the RSS feed, the journal Twitter feed, or the Facebook group. You can also read more blog posts about RIO at the official RIO Journal blog.

 

Yesterday, I tried to read a piece of research, relevant to my interests that was published in 1949. Sadly as is usual, I hit a paywall asking me for £30 + tax to read it (I didn’t pay).

Needless to say, the author is almost certainly deceased so I can’t simply email him for a copy.

The paper copy is useless to me, even though my institution probably has one somewhere. I need electronic access. It would probably take me an hour to walk to the library, do the required catalogue searches, find the shelf, find the issue, find the page, re-type the paragraphs I need back into a computer, walk back to my desk etc… That whole paper-based workflow is a non-starter.

I noted the article is available electronically online to some lucky, privileged subscribers – but who? Why is the list of institutions that are privileged enough to have access to paywalled articles not public information? It would be extremely helpful to know what institutions have access to which journals & which journal year ranges.

So I thought I’d do an informal twitter poll of people on twitter about this issue:

I received an overwhelming number of responses. Probably over a hundred in total. Huge thanks to all those who took part.

Given such a brilliant community response it would be remiss of me not to share what I’ve learnt with everyone, not just those who helped contribute each little piece of information. So 24 hours later, here’s what I now know about who can access this 1949 paper (data supporting these statements is permanently archived at Zenodo):

Mounce, Ross. (2015). Data on which institutions have access to a 1949 paper, paywalled at Taylor & Francis. Zenodo.

I’m not pretending the following analysis of the data is rigorous science. It’s not. It’s anecdata about access to a single paper at a single journal (a classic n=1 experiment). Of course it also relies on each contributor correctly reporting the truth, and that some potential responses may have self-censored. The sampling is highly non-random and reflects my social sphere of influence on Twitter; predominately US and UK-centric, although I do have single data points from Brazil & Australia (thanks Gabi & Cameron!). Nevertheless, despite all these provisos it’s highly interesting anecdata:

The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland:
Of responses representing 41 different UK institutions including my own, only 3 have access to this paper, namely: University of Cambridge, University of Oxford, and University of Glasgow.
Had I got more responses from a wider variety of UK HEIs like the University of Lincoln and University Of Worcester where I also have friends, I suspect the overall percentage of UK institutions that have access would be even smaller! I’m particularly amused that it appears that no London-based institution has electronic access to this paper!

North America:
Of responses representing 29 different institutions in Canada and the United States, only 7 have access to the paper, namely: Virginia Tech, University of Illinois, University of Florida, North Carolina State University, Case Western Reserve University, Arizona State University, and McGill University. It’s intriguing that North American institutions appear to have slightly better access to this journal as originally the journal was published in London, England!

The ‘rest of the world’ (not meant in a patronising way):
Of responses representing 23 different institutions not based in the UK, Canada, or the United States, only 2 definitely have access to this paper: Wageningen University and Stockholm University. I note that the person who contributed data on Stockholm University access does not have an official recognised affiliation with Stockholm university and that they used alternative methods *cough* to discover this (just for clarity and to further demonstrate the sampling issues at play here!).

Despite asking far and wide. I only found 11 different institutions that actually have electronic access to this paper, and none from London where the paper was actually published.

I’m fascinated by this data, despite its limitations. I’d like to collect more and collect it more efficiently. Perhaps the librarian community could help by publishing exactly what each institution has access to? Although one conversation thread seemed to indicate that libraries may not even know exactly what they have subscribed to at any one point in time (Seriously? WTF!).

Why is this stuff important to know?

I often hear an old canard from certain people that we don’t need open access because “most researchers have access to all the journals and articles they need”. Sometimes some crap, misleading survey data is trotted-out to support this opinion. Actual data on which actual institutions have actual access to subscription-only research is pivotal to countering this canard. For example, it is extremely useful to point out that institutions like Brock University and University of Montreal do NOT have access to the bundle of Wiley journals.  Particularly at a time when maddeningly many societies have decided to start publishing …with Wiley e.g. the Ecological Society of America! It’s not very joined-up thinking and it’s going to create a lot of pain for a lot of people. Both Montreal & Brock & many other institutions with ecologists do not have access to the big Wiley bundle of journals. I’m sure there are useful examples in other subject areas too of mismatch between subscriptions held & needed access. The solution to this of course is NOT to re-subscribe, but to fix the problem at its source; to fully-recognise that access is a global issue and many people need access to a very wide variety of different journals, that a proper transition to an open access availability model is needed.

If I wait 26 years, it will be available for free in the Biodiversity Heritage Library. I hope I live that long!

What to do next?

If your institution isn’t listed in my dataset so far, please do still try and access this article and let me know if you can or cannot instantly access it via your institutional affiliations from Taylor & Francis.

Given we have researchers coming from all corners of the globe for OpenCon later this year, I will soon explore whether together, as the OpenCon community, we can do something like this on a grander scale to more rigorously document the patchy nature of subscription-provided access.

The final word

I’ll leave the final word, to the obvious ‘elephant-in-the-room’ that I haven’t discussed much so far, they are the 99.99% relative to us privileged institutionally-affiliated lucky-ones. I am very obviously aware of and do care about, independent researchers & readers of the ‘general public’; neither of which can afford subscription-access to most paywalled journals:

Today (2015-09-01), marks the public announcement of Research Ideas & Outcomes (RIO for short), a new open access journal for all disciplines that seeks to open-up the entire research cycle with some truly novel features

I know what you might be thinking: Another open access journal? Really? 

Myself, nor Daniel Mietchen simply wouldn’t be involved with this project if it was just another boring open access journal. This journal packs a mighty combination of novel features into one platform:

  • 1.) RIO will publish research proposals, as well as regular research outputs such as articles, data papers and software – this has never been done by a journal before to my knowledge
  • 2.) RIO will label research outputs with ‘Impact Categories’ based upon UN Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and EU Societal Challenges, to highlight the real-world relevance of research and to better link-up research across disciplines (see below for some example MDGs).

millenium-development-goals

  • 3.) RIO supports a variety of different types of peer-review, including ‘pre-submission, author-facilitated, external peer-review‘ (new), as well as post-publication journal-organized open peer-review (similar to that pioneered by F1000Research), and ‘spontaneous’ (not journal-organized) post-publication open peer-review which is actively encouraged. All peer-review will be open/public, in keeping with the overall guiding philosophy of the journal to increase transparency and reduce waste in the research cycle. Reviewer comments are highly valuable; it is a waste not to make them public. When supplied, all reviewer comments will be made openly available.
  • 4.) RIO offers flexibility in publishing services and pricing in a bold attempt to ‘decouple’ the traditional scholarly journal into its component services. Authors & funders thus may choose to pay for the publishing services they actually want, not an inflexible bundle of different services, as there is at most journals.
Source: Priem, J. and Hemminger, B. M. 2012. Decoupling the scholarly journal. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. Licensed under CC BY-NC

Source: Priem, J. and Hemminger, B. M. 2012. Decoupling the scholarly journal. Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience. Image licensed under CC BY-NC.

 

  • 5.) On the technical side of things, RIO uses an integrated end-to-end XML-backed publication system for Authoring, Reviewing, Publishing, Hosting, and Archiving called ARPHA. As a publishing geek this excites me greatly as it eliminates the need for typesetting, ensuring a smooth and low-cost publishing process. Reviewers can make comments inline or more generally over the entire manuscript, on the very same document and platform that the authors wrote in, much like Google Docs. This has been successfully tried and tested for years at the Biodiversity Data Journal and is a system now ready for wider-use.

 

For the above reasons and more, I’m hugely excited about this journal and am delighted to be one of their founding editors alongside Dr Daniel Mietchen. See our growing list of Advisory and Editorial Board members for insight into who else is backing this new journal – we’ve got some great people on board already! If you’re interested in supporting this initiative please do enquire about volunteering as an editor for the journal, we need more editors to support the broad scale and ambition of journal. You can apply via the main website here.