1. Björn Brembs
Universität Regensburg
http://brembs.net - @brembs

2. Scientists produce publications, data
and code

3. Dysfunctional scholarly literature

4. • Limited access
• No scientific impact
analysis
• Lousy peer-review
• No global search
• No functional hyperlinks
• Useless data visualization
• No submission standards
• (Almost) no statistics
• No content-mining
• No effective way to sort,
filter and discover
• No networking feature
• etc.
…it’s like the
web in 1995!

5. Scientific data in peril

6. Report on Integration of Data and Publications, ODE Report 2011
http://www.alliancepermanentaccess.org/wp-content/plugins/download-monitor/download.php?id=ODE+Report+on+Integration+of+Data+and+Publications

8. Non-existent software archives

11. • Email
• Webspace
• Blog
• Library access card
• ‘Green’ OA repository
• No archiving of publications
• No archiving of code
• No archiving of data

12. 575+ solutions and counting…

13. Only the best publish in high-ranking journals

14. • Negotiable
• Irreproducible
• Mathematically
unsound
Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291

16. Is journal prestige like astrology?

17. The weakening relationship between the Impact Factor and papers' citations in the digital age (2012): George A. Lozano, Vincent Lariviere, Yves Gingras arXiv:1205.4328

18. Macleod MR, et al. (2015) Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273

19. Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291

20. Munafò, M., Stothart, G., & Flint, J. (2009). Bias in genetic association studies and impact factor DOI: 10.1038/mp.2008.77

21. Brown, E. N., & Ramaswamy, S. (2007).
Quality of protein crystal structures.
doi:10.1107/S0907444907033847

22. “High-Impact” journals attract the
most unreliable research

23. Fang et al. (2012): Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109

24. Data from: Fang, F., & Casadevall, A. (2011). RETRACTED SCIENCE AND THE RETRACTION INDEX DOI: 10.1128/IAI.05661-11

29. “Do you trust scientists?”

33. The disaster that is our digital
infrastructure

35. Save time and money by making science
open by default as an added benefit

39. Effortless, low-risk and by default

41. Software to control the experiment and save the data

42. Software to analyze and visualize the data

58. 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 of
Science) über alle Arbeiten)
Publications:
Complete list of publications, including original research papers as first
author, senior author, impact points total and in the last 5 years, with
marked first and last-authorships, personal Scientific Citations Index
(SCI, h-Index according to Web of Science) for all publications.

59. 1) Publish in the “Journal of Unreliable
Research” of your field – or take your chances
#getyourGlam

60. 2) Publish everything else where publication is
quick and where it can be widely read
#dontwastetimepublishing

61. 3) Ask your PI what will happen to all the work
you put into your code & data and how you can
get as many people as possible to use it
#openscience

62. 1. #getyourGlam
2. #dontwastetimepublishing
3. #openscience
4. #wearyouropenonyoursleeve

64. (Sources: Van Noorden, R. (2013). Open access: The true cost of science publishing. doi:10.1038/495426a, Packer, A. L. (2010). The SciELO Open
Access: A Gold Way from the South. Can. J. High. Educ. 39, 111–126)
Potentialforinnovation:9.8bp.a.
Costs[thousandUS$/article]
Legacy SciELO

68. Scientific source code

69. Research data

70. Narrative

71. The square traversal process has been the
foundation of scholarly communication for nearly
400 years!