Tim Ellison
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. |
