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

7.
Non-existent software archives

8.
• Email
• Webspace
• Blog
• Library access card
• ‘Green’ OA repository
• No archiving of publications
• No archiving of code
• No archiving of data

9.
575+ solutions and counting…

10.
Only the best publish in high-ranking journals

11.
• Negotiable
• Irreproducible
• Mathematically
unsound
Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291

12.
Is journal prestige like astrology?

13.
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

14.
Macleod MR, et al. (2015) Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273

15.
Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291

16.
Munafò, M., Stothart, G., & Flint, J. (2009). Bias in genetic association studies and impact factor DOI: 10.1038/mp.2008.77

17.
Brown, E. N., & Ramaswamy, S. (2007).
Quality of protein crystal structures.
doi:10.1107/S0907444907033847

18.
“High-Impact” journals attract the
most unreliable research

19.
Fang et al. (2012): Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109

20.
Data from: Fang, F., & Casadevall, A. (2011). RETRACTED SCIENCE AND THE RETRACTION INDEX DOI: 10.1128/IAI.05661-11

21.
“Do you trust scientists?”

22.
The disaster that is our digital
infrastructure

23.
Save time and money by making science
open by default as an added benefit

24.
Effortless, low-risk and by default

25.
Software to control the experiment and save the data

26.
Software to analyze and visualize the data

27.
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.

28.
1) Publish in the “Journal of Unreliable
Research” of your field – or take your chances
#getyourGlam

29.
2) Publish everything else where publication is
quick and where it can be widely read
#dontwastetimepublishing

30.
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

31.
1. #getyourGlam
2. #dontwastetimepublishing
3. #openscience
4. #wearyouropenonyoursleeve

32.
(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

33.
Scientific source code

34.
Research data

35.
Narrative

36.
The square traversal process has been the
foundation of scholarly communication for nearly
400 years!