Our Scholarship System is Broke. Can Open Access Fix It?
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Our Scholarship System is Broke. Can Open Access Fix It?

on

  • 445 views

Auckland talk24october openaccessweek. ...

Auckland talk24october openaccessweek.
"Broke" in the sense of ain't got no money because giving too much to publishers. And "Broke" in the sense of broken, e.g. not publishing replication studies.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
445
Views on SlideShare
445
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

CC Attribution License

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

Our Scholarship System is Broke. Can Open Access Fix It? Our Scholarship System is Broke. Can Open Access Fix It? Presentation Transcript

  • Our Scholarship System is Broke. Can Open Access Fix It? Alex.Holcombe@sydney.edu.au School of Psychology http://www.slideshare.net/holcombea/ @ceptionalWednesday, 24 October 12 1
  • Scientist meets Publisher Academic knowledge is boxed in by expensive journals. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GMIY_4t-DR0Wednesday, 24 October 12 2
  • operating profit company industry 7% Woolworths supermarkets, pokies 12% BMW automobiles 22% Coca-Cola adding sugar to water 23% Rio Tinto mining 36% Apple premium computing 34% Springer scholarly publishing 36% Elsevier scholarly publishing 42% Wiley scholarly publishingThanks to Nick Scott-Samuel $3983 USD per article for Elsevier $1350 USD per article for PLoS ONE Claudio Aspesi at http://poynder.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/open-access-brick-by-brick.htmlWednesday, 24 October 12 3
  • JOURNAL / PUBLISHER COST ($USD) ACCESS $10,780 per Subscription article (not including charges for color figures) $85 per page Open Access $80 per page Open Access (introductory rate is even cheaper) $1350 per article Open AccessWednesday, 24 October 12 4
  • JOURNAL / PUBLISHER COST ($USD) ACCESS $10,780 per Subscription article (not including charges for color figures) $85 per page Open Access $80 per page Open Access (introductory rate is even cheaper) $1350 per article Open Access $99 per life Open AccessWednesday, 24 October 12 4
  • Monopoly + Profit $ = = maximization BrokeWednesday, 24 October 12 5
  • OA HULK WANTS TO KNOW WHO TO OCCUPY! ELSEVIER!? ACS!? HARPERCOLLINS!? YOU NAME IT, OA HULK WILL OCCUPY AND SMASH! “Open Access Hulk”Wednesday, 24 October 12 6
  • started January 2012 $3983 USD per article for Elsevier $1350 USD per article for PLoS ONE Claudio Aspesi at http://poynder.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/open-access-brick-by-brick.htmlWednesday, 24 October 12 7
  • 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Wednesday, 24 October 12 8
  • 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Wednesday, 24 October 12 8
  • 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012Wednesday, 24 October 12 8
  • GREEN ROAD GOLD ROAD •Deposit your manuscripts in the university repository Article Processing Charge (http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/ •Even with closed journals, you often have the right to deposit your final version (e.g. Word document before typeset by publisher) $1,350 •Funders, universities should mandate this. •Publishers will adapt, as they have in physics. $3,000 Stevan HarnadWednesday, 24 October 12 9
  • Requirements from funders that publications be OA •NIH (US) within 12 months •Wellcome Trust (UK) within 6 months •final grant payment withheld if you don’t comply •NHMRC (Australia) within 12 months •“publications arising from an NHMRC supported research project must be deposited into an open access institutional repository within a twelve month period from the date of publication.” •ARC (Australia) •You can use DP funds to pay open-access fees, but must be taken from the funds you were awarded to pay for other things. •“Strongly encourages” open access, no teeth. Compliance rate very low.Wednesday, 24 October 12 10
  • Open Data: the next step NHMRC: The next steps will be improving public and other researchers’ access to publicly funded data. https://theconversation.edu.au/all-research-funded-by-nhmrc-to-be-accessible-free-of-charge-5486Wednesday, 24 October 12 11
  • Open Data: the next step NHMRC: The next steps will be improving public and other researchers’ access to publicly funded data. https://theconversation.edu.au/all-research-funded-by-nhmrc-to-be-accessible-free-of-charge-5486Wednesday, 24 October 12 11
  • ce is self- correcting always found. Wh y sci en i sc onduct; it is Ul terior Motiv es oint in p scientific m arkm M an, Ph.D. in Theres no 0, 2010 by Art ents, it is hard fo ra Published on August 1 othe rs experim s rep lwayeating each ntists are a g. B ecause scie o hang on for very lon lt t fictitious resu The Replicability Crisis Bayer HealthCare :only about 25% of published preclinical studies could be validated to the point Rule among early-stage venture at which projects could continue capital firms that “at least 50% of published studies, even those in top- Amgen Fifty-three papers were deemed ‘landmark’ tier academic journals, cant be studies (see ‘Reproducibility of research repeated with the same conclusions findings’)... scientific findings were confirmed in by an industrial lab” - Prinz, Schlange, & Asadullah. Nature Rev. only 6 (11%) cases Drug Discov. 10, 712 (2011)Wednesday, 24 October 12 12
  • The File-Drawer Problem unpublished results files http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickperez/2569423078 t. magnumWednesday, 24 October 12 13
  • The File-Drawer Problem •Difficult to publish non- replications and replications •Most journals only publish papers that “make a novel unpublished contribution” results files •Reviewers/editors tend to hold non-replicating manuscript to higher standard than original. •Bem http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickperez/2569423078 t. magnum •Little career incentive to publish a non-replication or a replicationWednesday, 24 October 12 14
  • The File-Drawer Problem http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickperez/2569423078 t. magnumWednesday, 24 October 12 15
  • The File-Drawer Problem Corollary 4: The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. Flexibility increases the potential for transforming what would be “negative” results into “positive” results. http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickperez/2569423078 t. magnum Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.Wednesday, 24 October 12 15
  • The File-Drawer Problem Corollary 4: The greater the flexibility in designs, definitions, outcomes, and analytical modes in a scientific field, the less likely the research findings are to be true. Flexibility increases the potential for transforming what would be “negative” results into “positive” results. t at mos idis th Ioann http://www.flickr.com/photos/nickperez/2569423078 t. magnum ith ree w le we ag .” ry, whi e false.. “In s umma ings ar Corollary 6: The hotter a scientific field (with more fi nd res earch scientific teams involved), the less likely the research findings are to be true.Wednesday, 24 October 12 15
  • Barriers to publishing replications and failed- replications • No glory in publishing a replication • Few journals publish replications • usually uphill battle even with those that do • The wrath of the original researcherWednesday, 24 October 12 16
  • Barriers to publishing replications and failed- replications • No glory in publishing a replication • Few journals publish replications • usually uphill battle even with those that do • The wrath of the original researcherWednesday, 24 October 12 16
  • Barriers to publishing replications and failed- replications • No glory in publishing a replication • Few journals publish replications • usually uphill battle even with those that do • The wrath of the original researcherWednesday, 24 October 12 16
  • File-drawer fixes• Journals that don’t reject replications for being uninteresting or unimportant ◦ • ✔• Pre-registration of study designs and analysis methods ◦ ✔ ◦• Brief reporting of replications ◦ ✔ ◦Wednesday, 24 October 12 17
  • File-drawer fixes• Journals that don’t reject replications as being uninteresting or unimportant ◦ • ✔• Pre-registration of study designs and analysis methods ◦ ✔ ◦• Brief reporting of replications ◦ ✔ ◦Wednesday, 24 October 12 18
  • preregistered Replication Reports Dan Simons 1. Authors plan a replication study 2. They submit an introduction and methods section 3. Sent to reviewers, including author of to-be-replicated article 4. Editor decides whether to accept/reject, based on: 1. Reviewer comments regarding the proposed protocol 2. Importance of original study, judged by argument in the introduction, number of citations of original, reviewer comments 5. The Intro, Method and analysis plan, and reviewer comments are posted on the journal website ✔ ✔ ✔ 6. After the results come in, the authors submit a conventional results and discussion section and that together with the raw data are posted, yielding the complete publicationWednesday, 24 October 12 19
  • preregistered Replication Reports • Original author signed off on it, so can’t complain / hate the replication authors as much. • Good way to start for a new PhD student, anyone planning to build on some already-published results • Will post the raw data ✔ ✔ ✔ • Will facilitate, publish meta-analyses when replications accrue • Reduce the incentive to publish flashy, headline-grabbing but unreliable studies? at Psychological Science?Wednesday, 24 October 12 20