blog

We continue discussions with our various partners in honour of Open Access Week. We spoke to Martin Elliott, Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery at University College London (UCL), and a Clinical Ambassador to Great Ormond Street Hospital Children’s Charity, is an Advisory Board Member for UCL Child Health Open Research. 

In this Q&A, Martin shares his views on open access, anticipating an increase in its use by institutions and grant-giving bodies, and explains how this could improve trust and transparency in the scientific community.

What do you think the launch of UCL Child Health Open Research will achieve?

We hope to accelerate the distribution of research data, so that important findings can reach those who need to see them as fast as possible. By incorporating named peer review and including the supporting raw data, this approach will enable re-analysis, facilitate attempts for study replication and mean that robust, validated data can be re-used.

Those submitting research data gain the most immediate benefit. The process is smoother, faster and more responsive.

UCL Child Health Open Research will not discriminate against papers showing negative results, as can be the case with many printed journals. We anticipate that such transparency will increase trust in the scientific community. UCL Child Health Open Research platform will also allow us to rapidly report interesting or rare cases, and so, encourage younger colleagues to start contributing to the academic literature. By taking a fully digital route, we could eliminate wasteful and expensive paper publishing.

What direction do you think Open Access is heading in the next five years?

I anticipate that there will be a huge expansion of open-access publishing, as products such as those offered by F1000, becoming the preferred publishing outlets of many institutions and grant-giving bodies. Open research platforms powered by F1000 have been launched by the Wellcome Trust and the Gates Foundation, who have seen the benefits of early publication and transparency. I think there will be an increasing emphasis on making all raw research data available, via such platforms, for others to study and attempt to replicate.

There will be an increasing emphasis on making all raw research data available, via such platforms, for others to study and attempt to replicate.

The ability of research participants to see the consequences of their involvement in studies cannot be underestimated. Other academic disciplines are more advanced than medicine in this area, and I believe that the traditional academic measure of the journal impact factor will become less important than citation scores, such as the h-index and i-10 scores. Science proceeds on the quality and visibility of the data generated, and open-access platforms improve such transparency.

Who do you think benefits from Open-Access?

Those submitting research data gain the most immediate benefit. The process is smoother, faster and more responsive. Those giving money for research see a guaranteed output of their investment. The reader can identify the reviewer and comment. The audit trail adds credibility. And the availability of the raw data gives benefit to all in the field wishing either to replicate or to modify a study. Everyone wins.

The benefits of early publication and transparency.

There will be fear from some that open-access journals lack the credibility of long established outlets and worry that they will not get the brownie points they deserve. The support of universities and grant giving bodies is growing fast and I think this fear will be soon be overcome.