[{"command":"openDialog","selector":"#drupal-modal","settings":null,"data":"\u003Cdiv id=\u0022republish_modal_form\u0022\u003E\u003Cform class=\u0022modal-form-example-modal-form ecl-form\u0022 data-drupal-selector=\u0022modal-form-example-modal-form\u0022 action=\u0022\/en\/article\/modal\/6210\u0022 method=\u0022post\u0022 id=\u0022modal-form-example-modal-form\u0022 accept-charset=\u0022UTF-8\u0022\u003E\u003Cp\u003EHorizon articles can be republished for free under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) licence.\u003C\/p\u003E\n \u003Cp\u003EYou must give appropriate credit. We ask you to do this by:\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n 1) Using the original journalist\u0027s byline\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n 2) Linking back to our original story\u003Cbr \/\u003E\n 3) Using the following text in the footer: This article was originally published in \u003Ca href=\u0027#\u0027\u003EHorizon, the EU Research and Innovation magazine\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\n \u003Cp\u003ESee our full republication guidelines \u003Ca href=\u0027\/horizon-magazine\/republish-our-stories\u0027\u003Ehere\u003C\/a\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\n \u003Cp\u003EHTML for this article, including the attribution and page view counter, is below:\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cdiv class=\u0022js-form-item form-item js-form-type-textarea form-item-body-content js-form-item-body-content ecl-form-group ecl-form-group--text-area form-no-label ecl-u-mv-m\u0022\u003E\n \n\u003Cdiv\u003E\n \u003Ctextarea data-drupal-selector=\u0022edit-body-content\u0022 aria-describedby=\u0022edit-body-content--description\u0022 id=\u0022edit-body-content\u0022 name=\u0022body_content\u0022 rows=\u00225\u0022 cols=\u002260\u0022 class=\u0022form-textarea ecl-text-area\u0022\u003E\u003Ch2\u003EResearch papers will be free to access, eventually \u2013 Nature\u2019s Philip Campbell\u003C\/h2\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003EWhat are the difficulties in getting research funders to pay for published papers?\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u2018The journals have to cover their costs and research, so different journals have different costs, but if you look at the big journals which have professional staff, they put a lot of effort into copy editing and putting papers up online and maintaining them. If you are going to cover all of those costs, you are going to charge a group of authors for a paper in a journal like Nature well over GBP 10 000 (EUR 14 000), whereas the most people pay at the moment and are willing to pay I would say is GBP 5 000.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u2018In the total scheme of things it is not a lot of money, but at the moment we are slightly stuck on that one, and actually there are whole disciplines that have no money anyway, like the social scientists do not have grants with funds attached that would allow them to pay for it.\u2019\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003EDo you think researchers and research funders will agree in the end to meet the full cost of publishing papers in journals like Nature?\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u2018Yes in the long run I do. I think that publishers will find ways of doing things more cheaply than they currently do and still maintain the quality, so that might bring the cost down, and also scientists will see the advantages and so will the funders. It is partly a matter of moving existing money that is currently spent on buying journals and subscriptions.\u2019\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003EWhat will be the impact of open access and open science?\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u2018To me it is the open data that matters just as much as the open text of the paper. By the data I mean the data that the researchers have independently collected separately from the paper. If you can get your hands on that, then you can really get in there much faster to check what is in this paper. In some complex pieces of work that can be immensely time consuming, but without it, it is quite hard to validate what the paper is saying.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u2018I would love all the literature to be open access. I would love funders to find the money to pay what it takes to put the literature up there and the data, it\u2019s a large sum of money but it\u2019s a small sum of money compared to the total research spend.\u2019\u003Cblockquote class=\u0022tw-text-center tw-text-blue tw-font-bold tw-text-2xl lg:tw-w-1\/2 tw-border-2 tw-border-blue tw-p-12 tw-my-8 lg:tw-m-12 lg:tw--ml-16 tw-float-left\u0022\u003E\n \u003Cspan class=\u0022tw-text-5xl tw-rotate-180\u0022\u003E\u201c\u003C\/span\u003E\n \u003Cp class=\u0022tw-font-serif tw-italic\u0022\u003E\u2018To me it is the open data that matters as much as the open text of the paper.\u2019\u003C\/p\u003E\n \u003Cfooter\u003E\n \u003Ccite class=\u0022tw-not-italic tw-font-normal tw-text-sm tw-text-black\u0022\u003EPhilip Campbell, Editor-in-Chief of Nature\u003C\/cite\u003E\n \u003C\/footer\u003E\n\u003C\/blockquote\u003E\n\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003EResearch papers which are submitted to journals like Nature are checked by other academics, the so-called peer review process. Does that need changing?\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u2018The capacity of the science community to peer review all of the research that is out there is very strained because there is a growing quantity of research. And even though the number of researchers themselves has also grown, somehow or another it doesn\u2019t seem to be keeping up. I think the other thing that can happen with peer review is that people who are experts from their own perspective can take a paper and judge it only on their own perspective, rather than stepping back. In those circumstances, it is crucial for people running the peer review, whether they are editors or fund managers, to be able to have knowledge themselves. So we solve that at Nature by sending people out into the labs, getting them to know the areas, and we make our own judgements. We will overrule referees on occasion, from the point of view of whether it is interesting or not. If the referee has got a technical problem, then we will of course abide by his or her advice. So that question of breadth of knowledge and breadth of outlook and imagination for a peer reviewer can limit the quality of what you get back.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u2018The final thing is that, I\u2019m afraid to say, peer reviewers can use the process competitively and can speak negatively about papers and grant applications in order to hold back their competitors. The only thing one can hope for is that the editor is using more than one peer reviewer and so you can control for that, and that they also have their own knowledge and instincts about the field.\u2019\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003EIn a recent \u003C\/strong\u003E\u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/www.nature.com\/nature\/journal\/v483\/n7391\/full\/483531a.html#t1\u0022\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003Epaper\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003C\/a\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003E published by Nature, Glenn Begley and Lee Ellis found that they could successfully replicate the scientific experiments used to support just 11 % of so-called \u2018landmark\u2019 biomedical research papers published in high-profile journals. Is this a fault of the peer review process?\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u2018A researcher may have mistakenly done something in the lab, or may have even subconsciously picked the best data to show, or even consciously picked the best data to show. All of these things happen and you just simply can\u2019t pick that up when you are looking at a paper, because a referee has a day at most. All they can do is take on trust what the paper says. So, if there is stuff going on in terms of errors behind the data then it\u2019s very hard for a referee to pick it up.\u2019\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u003Cstrong\u003EDoes it mean that many of the papers published by Nature are wrong?\u003C\/strong\u003E\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003E\u2018All scientific papers are contingent. Every science paper is just the best statement that the authors can come up with. Some have outstanding discoveries whose interpretation turn out be to invalidated by subsequent work. There is, I am sure, a worryingly high proportion of biomedical papers in Nature and other journals that turn out to be wrong. There are all sorts of reasons why it is only over time that any particular paper is shown to be right or wrong, there are natural errors that occur, there is misconduct, which is a very, very small proportion of the whole, and the number of papers that are retracted because they are wrong is tiny, that\u2019s something like 0.1 % of the entire literature. Most papers in Nature are certainly a reasonable approximation to the truth, let\u2019s put it that way.\u2019\u003Cdiv class=\u0022moreinfoblock\u0022\u003E\n \u003Ch3\u003EOpen access in Horizon 2020\u003C\/h3\u003E\n \u003Cp\u003EAll projects receiving Horizon 2020 funding have the obligation to make sure any peer-reviewed journal article they publish is openly accessible, free of charge.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EThe open access policy is summarised in a brief \u003Ca href=\u0022https:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/programmes\/horizon2020\/sites\/horizon2020\/files\/FactSheet_Open_Access.pdf\u0022 target=\u0022_blank\u0022\u003Efactsheet\u003C\/a\u003E.\u0026nbsp;For the details on open access applicable to beneficiaries in projects funded under Horizon 2020, please see the \u003Ca href=\u0022http:\/\/ec.europa.eu\/research\/participants\/data\/ref\/h2020\/grants_manual\/hi\/oa_pilot\/h2020-hi-oa-pilot-guide_en.pdf\u0022 target=\u0022_blank\u0022\u003EGuidelines on Open Access to Scientific Publications and Research Data\u003C\/a\u003E.\u003C\/p\u003E\u003Cp\u003EHorizon 2020 has a limited pilot action on open access to research data.\u003C\/p\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003C\/p\u003E\u003C\/textarea\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E\n\n \u003Cdiv id=\u0022edit-body-content--description\u0022 class=\u0022ecl-help-block description\u0022\u003E\n Please copy the above code and embed it onto your website to republish.\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n \u003C\/div\u003E\n\u003Cinput autocomplete=\u0022off\u0022 data-drupal-selector=\u0022form-91jena-bi8nmz7yetqu7edr33kqja87f0djquwaiysc\u0022 type=\u0022hidden\u0022 name=\u0022form_build_id\u0022 value=\u0022form-91jenA_Bi8NMZ7yETqu7EdR33kQJa87F0dJqUWAiYSc\u0022 \/\u003E\n\u003Cinput data-drupal-selector=\u0022edit-modal-form-example-modal-form\u0022 type=\u0022hidden\u0022 name=\u0022form_id\u0022 value=\u0022modal_form_example_modal_form\u0022 \/\u003E\n\u003C\/form\u003E\n\u003C\/div\u003E","dialogOptions":{"width":"800","modal":true,"title":"Republish this content"}}]