|
Dr Victor Henning, Co-Founder Mendeley & VP Strategy Elsevier |
by Alex Katsomitros, The Observatory:
http://www.obhe.ac.uk/newsletters/borderless_report_june_2013/interview_with_dr_victor_henning
Victor Henning is a pioneer in social networking in academia.
A researcher specialising in consumer behaviour, he founded Mendeley,
a reference manager and academic social network, in 2007.
The company
grew to become a prominent social platform for finding, managing and
sharing academic content, and was sold to education publisher Elsevier in April 2013 for between $69m and $100m.
We recently spoke with Dr Henning about the open-access revolution and
its impact on academic research and peer review, the UK government's
open-access policy, Mendeley's purchase by Elsevier, MOOCs and the
future of libraries.
Dr Henning, as you know there is a heated debate in
academic circles about open-access academic publishing. Some
universities claim that they cannot afford to pay subscriptions to
academic journals anymore. Academic publishers say that quality
research, particularly when peer-reviewed, costs money and someone has
to pay for it. Where do you stand in this debate?
I think all of these observations are true. Open access makes it
possible not only for academics but also for a wider audience, including
companies and private individuals who are interested in research, to
access content and use it for free. So open access has broader societal
benefits.
But on the other hand if you are a researcher and you want to publish
in a journal you need to find the funds to cover the article processing
fee.
Usually If you are affiliated with a large institution you will
receive the money from your institution. But that is not always the
case, and this is why you will hear some academics raising that issue.
From the perspective of Mendeley, if content is freely available, it
makes our life easier because we can allow academics to access content
without having to authenticate whether their universities have license
to access a journal or not.
Your company is a pioneer in this emerging culture of sharing
content online. But now it has become part of Elsevier, a big publishing
company. Do you fear that there will be a backlash from your users?
As with any acquisition, users have questions about what is going to
happen. They have invested a lot of time in this tool by integrating it
into their workflow and in many cases in their labs.
So people are
naturally concerned whether we will stay independent, whether we will
start charging them at some point and so on. They also worry about our
collaboration functionalities and our open API [application programming
interface], which gives free access to our data to 3,000 developers.
There is concern that with Elsevier there will be more pressure to
monetise and shut down some of these functionalities.
In fact it is exactly the opposite.
As a start-up you always have
this conflict: on the one hand you want to give away value and features
for free so that you can grow your user base, but on the other hand you
need to make money and charge for new features in order to break even
and become independent more quickly.
In the past we had to charge for
features which we would have liked to offer for free.
Now with Elsevier, we will have more resources, so we can take a
long-term perspective and give away certain features that otherwise we
would charge for.
We are part of a bigger company, so it is not just
about Mendeley breaking even anymore, but about what makes sense in the
context of Elsevier and Mendeley users combined.
For example, we will immediately double the available storage base
for free. We are currently reviewing the sharing and collaboration
limits and we are most likely to increase them in the next few weeks.
We
are about to release new iPhone and iPad applications. We will also
start developing an Android application, a top feature request by our
users, but we never had the money to develop it.
In regard to open API, we remain committed to delivering data to the third-party developing ecosystem through
Creative Commons license.
In fact I think that third-party developers will get more value because
we can now use Elsevier data to clean up the data that we have and make
it more complete and rich for use in areas such as citation analysis
and user-generation profile.
What do you think of the UK government's open-access policy? As
you know the UK government wishes to make all publicly funded research
open access by 2014. Some academics and associations
have warned that such a policy might undermine the freedom of academics
to publish research in whichever publication they prefer. One of their
arguments is that university leaders and bureaucrats will be the ones to
decide what will be published and what not.
I used to be a researcher myself, so coming from the perspective of
the academic I think that it is important that researchers are able to
choose where they publish their research. As a researcher you always
have a narrow choice of which journals are suitable for your work.
You,
as an academic, are the best judge of where you want to publish your
research for various reasons: which outlet is read by your peers, which
is the best match for the type of your research, and which one you can
afford if there is a processing fee.
I think that the government should
enable researchers to have that choice.
Well, exactly: some academics are complaining that researchers
will not have that freedom of choice anymore if open access becomes the
norm. It will be the universities that will have the final say on who
publishes what and where.
I can see that being an issue, because there are two sides in the
market. On one end you have academics and on the other you have
publishers. If academics are forced to publish open access, the choice
of where to publish is taken away from them.
The only other option would
be that the government forces publishers to go open access. As I said
open access has societal benefits, but it is also important for
companies to choose the best business model for them.
Ultimately,
freedom of choice is important, so academics should be able to choose,
but companies should also be able to choose their business model.
What is your view of the impact of open-access publishing on the
peer review model? Some academics and publishers have argued that open
access will undermine peer review, for example by making it unaffordable
for publishers or encouraging universities to cancel subscriptions to
peer-reviewed journals.
I would disagree with these views. Whether a journal runs a good
peer-review process is not tied to its business model, whether that is
an open access or a subscription-based model.
It is true that there are
some 'predatory' open-access journals that pretend to do peer review and
lure academics to submit their papers for a fee, but do not actually
provide peer review. But that is a case of scamming rather than of being
committed to open access.
I also think that open-access journals like
PLOS ONE
have made a tremendous contribution to the way peer review is done.
Their approach relies on judging only the technical merits of a paper,
rather than its so-called contribution or impact. Personally I think
that this is a good move.
Of course people might have various goals when
they publish research. If they want to submit to the most exclusive
journals then they will not submit to PLOS but to magazines such as
Nature or Science.
But on the other hand PLOS's approach does have an
advantage, that it lets the community judge whether a paper truly has an
impact or not. So I would disagree with those saying that open access
harms peer review.
Do you think that open access will also affect content? For
example, it has been argued that open access will incentivise
researchers to make their work simpler and perhaps more attractive to a
wider audience. Do you expect that to happen?
I do, but not necessarily because of the way the peer review model
works. It is generally becoming more important for academics to convey
the outcomes of their research, what they want to achieve with their
research and why they are doing it in the first place.
I think that this
is a good thing: that researchers should want to share knowledge and
ideally avoid using language accessible only to experts. Sometimes it is
inevitable that language is used that outsiders cannot understand, but
it should not be deliberate.
To digress a bit to the philosophy of
science, it was Karl Popper who reminded academics that they should try
to be as easily understandable as possible.
Coming back to your question about peer review, I think that the
potential benefits of changing peer review, particularly in the way PLOS
is doing it by focusing on the technical merits of a paper rather than
its impact, might mean a speedier publication process; instead of having
to go through three or four round reviews, and then wait for a few
months to go to print, you can have a very short period of time between
discovery and dissemination of research.
Open access also removes another bottleneck. There is a quote by Paul
Lauterbur, a Nobel laureate in medicine, that I am fond of: 'you could
write the entire history of science in the last 50 years in terms of
papers rejected by
Science or
Nature'.
So even the
highest-quality work often gets rejected because it is too radical,
novel or outrageous to contemplate. With the new model of peer review,
where you are only judging technical merits, I think that we would see
more of this radical research getting disseminated faster, and to my
mind that is a good thing.
I can imagine philosophers such as Hegel and Habermas submitting
work for peer review and having it rejected for being too radical or
complicated ... but what do you think about that other item that has been
making headlines lately: MOOCs?
The thing that has struck me about MOOCs is that most access to
scientific literature is determined by affiliation with an academic
institution. Most people outside universities still have a hard time
accessing academic content.
That might change in ten or twenty years,
when open access will possibly be a standard way of publishing. But
until then there is an issue.
For example, if you are taking a Stanford
course and you are not a Stanford student how will you access the
research you need to have a first-class education? That question has not
been answered yet.
Do you see a business opportunity there for Mendeley or other companies?
Absolutely. I have met many people outside academia who are
interested in having access to academic content. So far the model is
tied to institutional sales, selling to libraries and then giving access
by affiliation.
I believe that there is potential for delivering
academic content to a wider audience, whether that is through open
access or through a new subscription model. Maybe something like an
iTunes for research. So, yes, I think that there are a numbers of
opportunities out there.
MOOCs are so far focused on teaching. Do you think that they could also serve as platforms for research in the future?
I would say that Mendeley is the MOOC of research. This is our actual
goal: to bring together academics from all over the world, match them
based on their interests and help them collaborate.
Looking for the
MOOC equivalent of research, I would say that this is exactly what we
are trying to build.
In the technology sector, data are valuable. Are data a potential
source of revenue for MOOCs and social networks in a higher education?
If so, are there privacy and security issues?
Data in research and higher education have the same value as in other
industries. Companies can tailor their offering, improve the product
and user experience they offer, and generate recommendations for
personalised learning or research. So data have an intrinsic value that
makes your product better.
Data also have a direct commercial value. Mendeley has a data
product, Mendeley Institutional Edition, licensed by major academic
institutions around the world.
This data product tells librarians what
journals are most popular with their institution's faculty and students,
so that they can optimise institutional subscriptions.
Regarding privacy, we do not release personal information, only
aggregate, so that you cannot infer what an individual academic is
doing.
So this is an example of a product that directly commercialises
data, but in a way that protects privacy and enables libraries to
deliver a better service to their faculty and researchers by optimising
their subscriptions.
How will open access affect the role of academic libraries? More
broadly, do you think that we need libraries now that all content is
digital?
Libraries serve several purposes. They provide access to information
by being the central point of purchase of content for publishers and
then passing on that information to faculty and students.
If open access
became the standard mode of accessing content, libraries would not need
to fulfill that task anymore. We would rather rely on centralised
databases and search engines, like Mendeley, Scopus, Google Scholar and
others.
But libraries also serve another purpose, which is preserving and
archiving information. Particularly at research institutions that
produce their own output, libraries will be needed to preserve and
disseminate that information.
So libraries should not be insular but
partner with platforms like Mendeley and others. I do think that
libraries have a role that goes beyond providing access to content.