Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Making Open the Default - Bjorn Brembs


Published on

The talk can be found here:

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Making Open the Default - Bjorn Brembs

  1. 1. Björn Brembs Universität Regensburg - @brembs
  2. 2. Scientists produce publications, data and code
  3. 3. Dysfunctional scholarly literature
  4. 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. 5. Scientific data in peril
  6. 6. Report on Integration of Data and Publications, ODE Report 2011
  7. 7. Non-existent software archives
  8. 8. • Email • Webspace • Blog • Library access card • ‘Green’ OA repository • No archiving of publications • No archiving of code • No archiving of data
  9. 9. 575+ solutions and counting…
  10. 10. Only the best publish in high-ranking journals
  11. 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. 12. Is journal prestige like astrology?
  13. 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. 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. 15. Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291
  16. 16. Munafò, M., Stothart, G., & Flint, J. (2009). Bias in genetic association studies and impact factor DOI: 10.1038/mp.2008.77
  17. 17. Brown, E. N., & Ramaswamy, S. (2007). Quality of protein crystal structures. doi:10.1107/S0907444907033847
  18. 18. “High-Impact” journals attract the most unreliable research
  19. 19. Fang et al. (2012): Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109
  20. 20. Data from: Fang, F., & Casadevall, A. (2011). RETRACTED SCIENCE AND THE RETRACTION INDEX DOI: 10.1128/IAI.05661-11
  21. 21. “Do you trust scientists?”
  22. 22. The disaster that is our digital infrastructure
  23. 23. Save time and money by making science open by default as an added benefit
  24. 24. Effortless, low-risk and by default
  25. 25. Software to control the experiment and save the data
  26. 26. Software to analyze and visualize the data
  27. 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. 28. 1) Publish in the “Journal of Unreliable Research” of your field – or take your chances #getyourGlam
  29. 29. 2) Publish everything else where publication is quick and where it can be widely read #dontwastetimepublishing
  30. 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. 31. 1. #getyourGlam 2. #dontwastetimepublishing 3. #openscience 4. #wearyouropenonyoursleeve
  32. 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. 33. Scientific source code
  34. 34. Research data
  35. 35. Narrative
  36. 36. The square traversal process has been the foundation of scholarly communication for nearly 400 years!