Summary report from the Open Pharma workstream meetings in July

Workstream 1: Open access, 24 July 2017

Key insights Next steps
Ideally, pharma would publish in journals with gold open access, Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY) licence and no embargo. We propose to develop a joint statement/letter.
Publishers should not treat pharma and academia differently; some journals do not allow pharma gold open access, even with a payment. Outline the rationale for gold open access to be the standard, regardless of who funded the research.
We need to talk directly with publishers and educate authors to drive change. Develop a toolkit to educate stakeholders from pharma, publishers and academia.
We need an open access value proposition for pharma. Call for collaboration with organizations that have similar goals to ours.

Workstream 2: ORCID, CRediT and Convey, 28 July 2017

Key insights Next steps
ORCID is well established in the academic world, but we need to learn about ORCID’s value specifically for pharma. GSK Vaccines to report in September on their adoption of ORCID.

Ask Envision to integrate ORCID into Datavision.

We need to learn more about CRediT, Convey and Publons, and assess their value to pharma. Learn more about Convey from an invited speaker at the next meeting.

Workstream 3: Preprints and post-publication peer review, 26 July 2017

Key insights Next steps
Preprints can increase speed and transparency, but the legal implications of the use of preprints for clinical research are unknown. Individual companies to discuss with their in‑house legal teams.

Oxford PharmaGenesis to approach regulators.

F1000Research’s post-publication peer review platform offers additional advantages to pharma, including limiting research waste and the ability to track usage with metrics. Debrief from Liz Allen’s meeting with Lise Baltzer about F1000Research and Shailesh Desai’s conversation with Chris Rains about Shire’s interest in the model.
  Learn more about Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA).

Workstream 4: Layered publication platforms, 27 July 2017

Key insights Next steps
The pharma perspective is of key importance. Confirm buy-in from a broader group of pharma.
No single model offers a complete answer. Present Crossref again for those who missed it.
There is no consensus on how a layered platform should be structured and run. Develop a straw-man proposal on the ideal layered publication model.

 

 

Leave a Reply