These slides are from eLife at OpenCon 2014

1. OpenCon, November, 2014
More than a
journal
Mark Patterson, Executive Director, eLife

2. Funders taking action

3. Motivations

4. Painful publishing
Martin Raff, Alexander Johnson
and Peter Walter

5. http://www.flickr.com/photos/m2w2/191545978/sizes/z/in/photostream/
• a journal-based metric
• proprietary
• incomplete

6. http://www.flickr.com/photos/m2w2/191545978/sizes/z/in/photostream/
• a journal-based metric
• proprietary
• incomplete

7. %PubMed available as open access in
PMC
0.0%
2.0%
4.0%
6.0%
8.0%
10.0%
12.0%
14.0%
16.0%
18.0%
2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

8. • a journal-based metric
• proprietary
• incompleteRun by scientists
Publish great research
Innovate and experiment

9. Laying the foundations
https://flic.kr/p/bb8q2z
CC BY-NC-ND

10. Editorial process
Full
submission
Peer review
Decision
after peer
review
Revision
assessed by
BRE
Consultation amongst reviewers
Single set of instructions
Limit rounds of revision
Assign to Reviewing Editor

12. Growth in submissions
307
1165
2449
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
2012 2013 2014

20. https://flic.kr/p/GcVfC
CC BY-NC-ND

21. Innovation and
experimentation

23. eLife Lens http://lens.elifesciences.org/

25. Ivan Grubisic

26. Research advances
eLife authors can add
important new findings to their
research article or short
report.
Advances can strengthen,
extend or even challenge the
original work.

27. • Screenshot of advance

28. • Screenshot of article

29. Why do this?
• Authors build their story
more quickly in smaller
pieces.
• Readers get hold of
relevant information more
quickly.
• Advances could go much
further, if any author can
add to an article.

30. http://www.flickr.com/photos/m2w2/191545978/sizes/z/in/photostream/
• a journal-based metric
• proprietary
• incomplete
The barrier to
overcome is
research
assessment
based on
impact factors
CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
https://flic.kr/p/8umuyU

31. • eLife is an opportunity to explore new approaches
to research communication
• Through sharing experience, data and tools we
hope to contribute to substantial improvements
– Editorial process
– Accessibility
– Presentation and utility
– Research assessment
In summary

33. Thank you
Mark Patterson
m.patterson@elifesciences.org