Limited access is a symptom, not the disease
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Like this? Share it with your network

Share

Limited access is a symptom, not the disease

on

  • 2,287 views

 

Statistics

Views

Total Views
2,287
Views on SlideShare
2,271
Embed Views
16

Actions

Likes
8
Downloads
22
Comments
2

3 Embeds 16

https://twitter.com 13
http://tweetedtimes.com 2
http://www.linkedin.com 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Limited access is a symptom, not the disease Presentation Transcript

  • 1. Björn BrembsFreie Universität Berlin Universität LeipzigUniversität Regensburg http://brembs.net
  • 2. Björn BrembsFreie Universität Berlin Universität LeipzigUniversität Regensburg http://brembs.net
  • 3. Dysfunctional scholarlyliterature
  • 4. • Limited access
  • 5. • Limited access• No global search
  • 6. • Limited access• No global search• No hyperlinks
  • 7. • Limited access• No global search• No hyperlinks• No data visualization
  • 8. • Limited access• No global search• No hyperlinks• No data visualization• No submission standards
  • 9. • Limited access• No global search• No hyperlinks• No data visualization• No submission standards• (Almost) no statistics
  • 10. • Limited access• No global search• No hyperlinks• No data visualization• No submission standards• (Almost) no statistics• No text/data-mining
  • 11. • Limited access• No global search• No hyperlinks• No data visualization• No submission standards• (Almost) no statistics• No text/data-mining• No effective way to sort, filter and discover
  • 12. • Limited access • No global search • No hyperlinks • No data visualization • No submission standards • (Almost) no statistics • No text/data-mining • No effective way to sort, filter and discover…it’s like the • No scientific impact analysisweb in 1995! • No networking feature • etc.
  • 13. Scientific data in peril
  • 14. Non-existent softwarearchives
  • 15. Technically feasible today (almost)• No more corporate publishers – libraries archive everything and make it publicly accessible according to a world-wide standard• Single semantic, decentralized database of literature, data and software
  • 16. Source Normalized Impact per Paper • Thomson Reuters: Impact Factor • Eigenfactor (now Thomson Reuters) • ScImago JournalRank (SJR) • Scopus: SNIP, SJR
  • 17. Only read publications from high-ranking journals
  • 18. Publikationstätigkeit(vollständige Publikationsliste, darunter Originalarbeiten als Erstautor/in,Seniorautor/in, Impact-Punkte insgesamt und in den letzten 5 Jahren,darunter jeweils gesondert ausgewiesen als Erst- und Seniorautor/in,persönlicher Scientific Citations Index (SCI, h-Index nach Web ofScience) über alle Arbeiten)Publications:Complete list of publications, including original research papers as firstauthor, senior author, impact points total and in the last 5 years, withmarked first and last-authorships, personal Scientific Citations Index(SCI, h-Index according to Web of Science) for all publications.
  • 19. Only read publications from high-ranking journals
  • 20. Only publish in high-ranking journals
  • 21. Lies, damn lies andbibliometrics
  • 22. Introduced in 1950’s by Eugene Garfield: ISI citations C12 publishedarticles A1 timepublished A2 year 1 year 2 year 3
  • 23. Introduced in 1950’s by Eugene Garfield: ISI citations 100 publishedarticles 40 timepublished 60 year 1 year 2 year 3
  • 24. Journal X IF 2010= All citations from TR indexed journals in 2012 to papers in journal X Number of citable articles published in journal X in 20010/11 €30,000-130,000/year subscription rates Covers ~11,500 journals (Scopus covers ~16,500)
  • 25. • Negotiable• Irreproducible• Mathematically unsound
  • 26. • PLoS Medicine, IF 2-11 (8.4) (The PLoS Medicine Editors (2006) The Impact Factor Game. PLoS Med 3(6): e291. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0030291)• Current Biology IF from 7 to 11 in 2003 – Bought by Cell Press (Elsevier) in 2001…
  • 27. • Rockefeller University Press bought their data from Thomson Reuters • Up to 19% deviation from published records • Second dataset still not correctRossner M, van Epps H, Hill E (2007): Showme the data. The Journal of Cell Biology, Vol.179, No. 6, 1091-1092http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/content/full/179/6/1091
  • 28. • Left-skewed distributions • Weak correlation of individual article citation rate with journal IFSeglen PO (1997): Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997;314(7079):497 (15 February)http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/314/7079/497
  • 29. Data from: Fang, F., & Casadevall, A. (2011). RETRACTED SCIENCE AND THE RETRACTION INDEX Infection and Immunity DOI: 10.1128/IAI.05661-11
  • 30. "Not everything that can be countedcounts, and not everything thatcounts can be counted."
  • 31. Corporate publishers‘ profitscan easily finance all reformsImage source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/wakingtiger/3156791383/sizes/m/in/photostream/
  • 32. 4b € per year for 10,000 university libraries: 400,000 € per year per library