Towards an open science publishing platform

Open science precision medicine in Canada: Points to consider

Open science can significantly influence the development and translational process of precision medicine in Canada. Precision medicine presents a unique opportunity to improve disease prevention and healthcare, as well as to reduce health-related expenditures. However, the development of precision medicine also brings about economic challenges, such as costly development, high failure rates, and reduced market size in comparison with the traditional blockbuster drug development model. Open science, characterized by principles of open data sharing, fast dissemination of knowledge, cumulative research, and cooperation, presents a unique opportunity to address these economic challenges while also promoting the public good.

The Centre of Genomics and Policy at McGill University organized a stakeholders’ workshop in Montreal in March 2018. The workshop entitled “Could Open be the Yellow Brick Road to Precision Medicine?” provided a forum for stakeholders to share experiences and identify common objectives, challenges, and needs to be addressed to promote open science initiatives in precision medicine. The rich presentations and exchanges that took place during the meeting resulted in this consensus paper containing key considerations for open science precision medicine in Canada. Stakeholders would benefit from addressing these considerations as to promote a more coherent and dynamic open science ecosystem for precision medicine.

An open toolkit for tracking open science partnership implementation and impact

Serious concerns about the way research is organized collectively are increasingly being raised. They include the escalating costs of research and lower research productivity, low public trust in researchers to report the truth, lack of diversity, poor community engagement, ethical concerns over research practices, and irreproducibility. Open science (OS) collaborations comprise of a set of practices including open access publication, open data sharing and the absence of restrictive intellectual property rights with which institutions, firms, governments and communities are experimenting in order to overcome these concerns. We gathered two groups of international representatives from a large variety of stakeholders to construct a toolkit to guide and facilitate data collection about OS and non-OS collaborations. Ultimately, the toolkit will be used to assess and study the impact of OS collaborations on research and innovation. The toolkit contains the following four elements: 1) an annual report form of quantitative data to be completed by OS partnership administrators; 2) a series of semi-structured interview guides of stakeholders; 3) a survey form of participants in OS collaborations; and 4) a set of other quantitative measures best collected by other organizations, such as research foundations and governmental or intergovernmental agencies. We opened our toolkit to community comment and input. We present the resulting toolkit for use by government and philanthropic grantors, institutions, researchers and community organizations with the aim of measuring the implementation and impact of OS partnership across these organizations. We invite these and other stakeholders to not only measure, but to share the resulting data so that social scientists and policy makers can analyse the data across projects.

An open toolkit for tracking open science partnership implementation and impact

Serious concerns about the way research is organized collectively are increasingly being raised. They include the escalating costs of research and lower research productivity, low public trust in researchers to report the truth, lack of diversity, poor community engagement, ethical concerns over research practices, and irreproducibility. Open science (OS) collaborations comprise of a set of practices including open access publication, open data sharing and the absence of restrictive intellectual property rights with which institutions, firms, governments and communities are experimenting in order to overcome these concerns. We gathered two groups of international representatives from a large variety of stakeholders to construct a toolkit to guide and facilitate data collection about OS and non-OS collaborations. Ultimately, the toolkit will be used to assess and study the impact of OS collaborations on research and innovation. The toolkit contains the following four elements: 1) an annual report form of quantitative data to be completed by OS partnership administrators; 2) a series of semi-structured interview guides of stakeholders; 3) a survey form of participants in OS collaborations; and 4) a set of other quantitative measures best collected by other organizations, such as research foundations and governmental or intergovernmental agencies. We opened our toolkit to community comment and input. We present the resulting toolkit for use by government and philanthropic grantors, institutions, researchers and community organizations with the aim of measuring the implementation and impact of OS partnership across these organizations. We invite these and other stakeholders to not only measure, but to share the resulting data so that social scientists and policy makers can analyse the data across projects.

A proposal for the future of scientific publishing in the life sciences

Science advances through rich, scholarly discussion. More than ever before, digital tools allow us to take that dialogue online. To chart a new future for open publishing, we must consider alternatives to the core features of the legacy print publishing system, such as an access paywall and editorial selection before publication. Although journals have their strengths, the traditional approach of selecting articles before publication ("curate first, publish second") forces a focus on "getting into the right journals," which can delay dissemination of scientific work, create opportunity costs for pushing science forward, and promote undesirable behaviors among scientists and the institutions that evaluate them. We believe that a "publish first, curate second" approach with the following features would be a strong alternative: authors decide when and what to publish; peer review reports are published, either anonymously or with attribution; and curation occurs after publication, incorporating community feedback and expert judgment to select articles for target audiences and to evaluate whether scientific work has stood the test of time. These proposed changes could optimize publishing practices for the digital age, emphasizing transparency, peer-mediated improvement, and post-publication appraisal of scientific articles.

Facilitating Web-Based Collaboration in Evidence Synthesis (TaskExchange): Development and Analysis

BACKGROUND

The conduct and publication of scientific research are increasingly open and collaborative. There is growing interest in Web-based platforms that can effectively enable global, multidisciplinary scientific teams and foster networks of scientists in areas of shared research interest. Designed to facilitate Web-based collaboration in research evidence synthesis, TaskExchange highlights the potential of these kinds of platforms.

OBJECTIVE

This paper describes the development, growth, and future of TaskExchange, a Web-based platform facilitating collaboration in research evidence synthesis.

METHODS

The original purpose of TaskExchange was to create a platform that connected people who needed help with their Cochrane systematic reviews (rigorous syntheses of health research) with people who had the time and expertise to help. The scope of TaskExchange has now been expanded to include other evidence synthesis tasks, including guideline development. The development of TaskExchange was initially undertaken in 5 agile development phases with substantial user engagement. In each phase, software was iteratively deployed as it was developed and tested, enabling close cycles of development and refinement.

RESULTS

TaskExchange enables users to browse and search tasks and members by keyword or nested filters, post and respond to tasks, sign up to notification emails, and acknowledge the work of TaskExchange members. The pilot platform has been open access since August 2016, has over 2300 members, and has hosted more than 630 tasks, covering a wide range of research synthesis-related tasks. Response rates are consistently over 75%, and user feedback has been positive.

CONCLUSIONS

TaskExchange demonstrates the potential for new technologies to support Web-based collaboration in health research. Development of a relatively simple platform for peer-to-peer exchange has provided opportunities for systematic reviewers to get their reviews completed more quickly and provides an effective pathway for people to join the global health evidence community.

Updated Editorial Guidance for Quality and Reliability of Research Output

Over the past few years, updated editorial policy statements of several associations have provided a platform for improving the quality of scientific research and publishing. The updates have particularly pointed to the need for following research reporting standards, authorship and contributorship regulations, implementing digital tools for the identification and crediting academic contributors, and moving towards optimal ethical open-access models. This article overviews some of the recent editorial policy statements of global editorial associations and reflects on the role of the regional counterparts in advancing scholarly publishing. One of the globally promoted documents is the Recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Its latest versions contain statements on proper research reporting, reviewing, editing, and publishing. Points on ethical target journals and 'predatory' sources are also available. This year, in a move to update its editorial policy, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) released the Core Practices, comprehensively reflecting on the major issues in publication ethics. Updated joint statements of medical writers associations are also available to implement transparent policy on contributorship in sponsor-supported research projects and related reports. Several suggestions are put forward to improve global editorial statements on online profiling, crediting, and referencing. It is also highlighted that knowledge and implementation of updated editorial guidance is essential for editors' good standing.

Who and why do researchers opt to publish in post-publication peer review platforms? - findings from a review and survey of F1000 Research

Background:  Preprint servers and alternative publication platforms enable authors to accelerate the dissemination of their research.  In recent years there has been an exponential increase in the use of such servers and platforms in the biomedical sciences, although little is known about who, why and what experiences researchers have with publishing on such platforms.  In this article we explore one of these alternative publication platforms, F1000 Research, which offers immediate publication followed by post-publication peer review.  Methods: From an unselected cohort of articles published between 13 th July 2012 and 30 th November 2017 in F1000 Research, we provided a summary of who and what was published on this platform and calculated the percentage of published articles that had been indexed on a bibliographic database ( PubMed) following successful post-publication peer review.  We also surveyed corresponding authors to further understand the rationale and experiences of those that have published using this platform.       Results: A total of 1865 articles had been published in the study cohort period, of which 80% (n=1488) had successfully undergone peer review and were indexed on PubMed within a minimum period of six months since first publication. Nearly three-quarters of articles passed the peer review process with their initial submission.  Survey responses were received from 296 corresponding authors. Open access, open peer review and the speed of publication were the three main reasons why authors opted to publish with F1000 Research.     Conclusions: Many who published with F1000 Research had a positive experience and indicated that they would publish again with this same platform in the future.  Nevertheless, there remained some concerns about the peer review process and the quality of the articles that were published.

The future(s) of open science

Almost everyone is enthusiastic that 'open science' is the wave of the future. Yet when one looks seriously at the flaws in modern science that the movement proposes to remedy, the prospect for improvement in at least four areas are unimpressive. This suggests that the agenda is effectively to re-engineer science along the lines of platform capitalism, under the misleading banner of opening up science to the masses.

Social behavioural epistemology and the scientific community

The progress of science is influenced substantially by social behaviour of and social interactions within the scientific community. Similar to innovations in primate groups, the social acceptance of an innovation depends not only upon the relevance of the innovation but also on the social dominance and connectedness of the innovator. There are a number of parallels between many well-known phenomena in behavioural evolution and various behavioural traits observed in the scientific community. It would be useful, therefore, to use principles of behavioural evolution as hypotheses to study the social behaviour of the scientific community. I argue in this paper that a systematic study of social behavioural epistemology is likely to boost the progress of science by addressing several prevalent biases and other problems in scientific communication and by facilitating appropriate acceptance/rejection of novel concepts.

Zika Virus Infection as a Cause of Congenital Brain Abnormalities and Guillain-Barré Syndrome: Systematic Review

BACKGROUND

The World Health Organization (WHO) stated in March 2016 that there was scientific consensus that the mosquito-borne Zika virus was a cause of the neurological disorder Guillain-Barré syndrome (GBS) and of microcephaly and other congenital brain abnormalities based on rapid evidence assessments. Decisions about causality require systematic assessment to guide public health actions. The objectives of this study were to update and reassess the evidence for causality through a rapid and systematic review about links between Zika virus infection and (a) congenital brain abnormalities, including microcephaly, in the foetuses and offspring of pregnant women and (b) GBS in any population, and to describe the process and outcomes of an expert assessment of the evidence about causality.

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The study had three linked components. First, in February 2016, we developed a causality framework that defined questions about the relationship between Zika virus infection and each of the two clinical outcomes in ten dimensions: temporality, biological plausibility, strength of association, alternative explanations, cessation, dose-response relationship, animal experiments, analogy, specificity, and consistency. Second, we did a systematic review (protocol number CRD42016036693). We searched multiple online sources up to May 30, 2016 to find studies that directly addressed either outcome and any causality dimension, used methods to expedite study selection, data extraction, and quality assessment, and summarised evidence descriptively. Third, WHO convened a multidisciplinary panel of experts who assessed the review findings and reached consensus statements to update the WHO position on causality. We found 1,091 unique items up to May 30, 2016. For congenital brain abnormalities, including microcephaly, we included 72 items; for eight of ten causality dimensions (all except dose-response relationship and specificity), we found that more than half the relevant studies supported a causal association with Zika virus infection. For GBS, we included 36 items, of which more than half the relevant studies supported a causal association in seven of ten dimensions (all except dose-response relationship, specificity, and animal experimental evidence). Articles identified nonsystematically from May 30 to July 29, 2016 strengthened the review findings. The expert panel concluded that (a) the most likely explanation of available evidence from outbreaks of Zika virus infection and clusters of microcephaly is that Zika virus infection during pregnancy is a cause of congenital brain abnormalities including microcephaly, and (b) the most likely explanation of available evidence from outbreaks of Zika virus infection and GBS is that Zika virus infection is a trigger of GBS. The expert panel recognised that Zika virus alone may not be sufficient to cause either congenital brain abnormalities or GBS but agreed that the evidence was sufficient to recommend increased public health measures. Weaknesses are the limited assessment of the role of dengue virus and other possible cofactors, the small number of comparative epidemiological studies, and the difficulty in keeping the review up to date with the pace of publication of new research.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid and systematic reviews with frequent updating and open dissemination are now needed both for appraisal of the evidence about Zika virus infection and for the next public health threats that will emerge. This systematic review found sufficient evidence to say that Zika virus is a cause of congenital abnormalities and is a trigger of GBS.

Fairness in scientific publishing

Major changes are afoot in the world of academic publishing, exemplified by innovations in publishing platforms, new approaches to metrics, improvements in our approach to peer review, and a focus on developing and encouraging open access to scientific literature and data. The FAIR acronym recommends that authors and publishers should aim to make their output Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable. In this opinion article, I explore the parallel view that we should take a collective stance on making the dissemination of scientific data fair in the conventional sense, by being mindful of equity and justice for patients, clinicians, academics, publishers, funders and academic institutions. The views I represent are founded on oral and written dialogue with clinicians, academics and the publishing industry. Further progress is needed to improve collaboration and dialogue between these groups, to reduce misinterpretation of metrics, to minimise inequity that arises as a consequence of geographic setting, to improve economic sustainability, and to broaden the spectrum, scope, and diversity of scientific publication.

search.bioPreprint: a discovery tool for cutting edge, preprint biomedical research articles

The time it takes for a completed manuscript to be published traditionally can be extremely lengthy. Article publication delay, which occurs in part due to constraints associated with peer review, can prevent the timely dissemination of critical and actionable data associated with new information on rare diseases or developing health concerns such as Zika virus. Preprint servers are open access online repositories housing preprint research articles that enable authors (1) to make their research immediately and freely available and (2) to receive commentary and peer review prior to journal submission. There is a growing movement of preprint advocates aiming to change the current journal publication and peer review system, proposing that preprints catalyze biomedical discovery, support career advancement, and improve scientific communication. While the number of articles submitted to and hosted by preprint servers are gradually increasing, there has been no simple way to identify biomedical research published in a preprint format, as they are not typically indexed and are only discoverable by directly searching the specific preprint server websites. To address this issue, we created a search engine that quickly compiles preprints from disparate host repositories and provides a one-stop search solution. Additionally, we developed a web application that bolsters the discovery of preprints by enabling each and every word or phrase appearing on any web site to be integrated with articles from preprint servers. This tool, search.bioPreprint, is publicly available at http://www.hsls.pitt.edu/resources/preprint.

search.bioPreprint: a discovery tool for cutting edge, preprint biomedical research articles

The time it takes for a completed manuscript to be published traditionally can be extremely lengthy. Article publication delay, which occurs in part due to constraints associated with peer review, can prevent the timely dissemination of critical and actionable data associated with new information on rare diseases or developing health concerns such as Zika virus. Preprint servers are open access online repositories housing preprint research articles that enable authors (1) to make their research immediately and freely available and (2) to receive commentary and peer review prior to journal submission. There is a growing movement of preprint advocates aiming to change the current journal publication and peer review system, proposing that preprints catalyze biomedical discovery, support career advancement, and improve scientific communication. While the number of articles submitted to and hosted by preprint servers are gradually increasing, there has been no simple way to identify biomedical research published in a preprint format, as they are not typically indexed and are only discoverable by directly searching the specific preprint server websites. To address this issue, we created a search engine that quickly compiles preprints from disparate host repositories and provides a one-stop search solution. Additionally, we developed a web application that bolsters the discovery of preprints by enabling each and every word or phrase appearing to with articles from preprint servers. This tool, search.bioPreprint, is publicly available at http://www.hsls.pitt.edu/resources/preprint.

Should there be greater use of preprint servers for publishing reports of biomedical science?

Vitek Tracz and Rebecca Lawrence declare the current journal publishing system to be broken beyond repair. They propose that it should be replaced by immediate publication followed by transparent peer review as the starting place for more open and efficient reporting of science. While supporting this general objective, we suggest that research is needed both to understand why biomedical scientists have been slow to take up preprint options, as well as to assess the relative merits of this and other alternatives to journal publishing.