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.
Björn Brembs
Universität Regensburg
http://brembs.net
Institutions produce texts,
data and software
Dysfunctional scholarly
literature
• Limited access
• No global search
• No functional hyperlinks
• No flexible data
visualization
• No submission
standards
...
Scientific data in peril
Non-existent software
archives
• Institutional email
• Institutional
webspace
• Institutional blog
• Library access card
• Open access
repository
• No ar...
Only read publications from high-ranking journals
Publikationstätigkeit
(vollständige Publikationsliste, darunter Originalarbeiten als Erstautor/in,
Seniorautor/in, Impact-...
Only read publications from high-ranking journals
Only publish in high-ranking journals
Brown, E. N., & Ramaswamy, S. (2007). Quality of protein crystal structures. Acta Crystallographica
Section D Biological C...
Munafò, M., Stothart, G., & Flint, J. (2009). Bias in genetic association studies and impact factor Molecular
Psychiatry, ...
Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal
rank. Frontiers in Human Neur...
Fang et al. (2012): Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. PNAS 109 no. 42 17028-17033
Data from: Fang, F., & Casadevall, A. (2011). RETRACTED SCIENCE AND THE RETRACTION INDEX Infection and Immunity DOI: 10.11...
Journal rank is a figment of
our imagination.
“High-Impact” journals attract
the most unreliable research
(Sources: Van Noorden, R. (2013). Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature 495, 426–9;
Packer, A. L. (2010...
The disaster that is our
digital infrastructure
Science, tear down this
paywall!
(Sources: Van Noorden, R. (2013). Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature 495, 426–9;
Packer, A. L. (2010...
• Harvest all accessible publications
– Database with single interface
– Not just from green repositories
– Everything tha...
• Global search and access for all literature, code
and data
• Intelligent sort, filter and discover
functionalities
• Sci...
Divide et impera: Don't let publishers distract you
Source: Mike Taylor
Remember the mission
We're not groping towards cost savings.
Source: Mike Taylor
Remember the mission
We're not groping towards cost savings.
We're transforming what research is and how it's used.
Source...
A1 A2
C12
time
citations
published
articles
published
year 1 year 2 year 3
Introduced in 1950’s by Eugene Garfield: ISI
40 60
100
time
citations
published
articles
published
year 1 year 2 year 3
Introduced in 1950’s by Eugene Garfield: ISI
Journal X IF 2010=
All citations from TR indexed journals in 2012 to papers in journal X
Number of citable articles publis...
• Negotiable
• Irreproducible
• Mathematically
unsound
• PLoS Medicine, IF 2-11 (8.4)
(The PLoS Medicine Editors (2006) The Impact Factor Game. PLoS Med 3(6): e291.
http://www.p...
• Rockefeller University Press bought their
data from Thomson Reuters
• Up to 19% deviation from published records
• Secon...
• Left-skewed distributions
• Weak correlation of individual article citation
rate with journal IF
Seglen PO (1997): Why t...
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure

6,637 views

Published on

Keynote address for Swedish Open Access Conference on April 1, 2014 in Växjö, Sweden.

Published in: Education
  • I liked your presentation very much. We have to change the way that science is done and the way it is evaluated. Given the omni-present internet it will be possible to build collaborative networks and involve large communities of scientists and citizens in the scientific enterprise. The value o science should be judged by its users and not by publishing companies who have interest fundamentally different from scientists and practitioners of science.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here

Access is only the tip of the iceberg: science needs a new infrastructure

  1. 1. Björn Brembs Universität Regensburg http://brembs.net
  2. 2. Institutions produce texts, data and software
  3. 3. Dysfunctional scholarly literature
  4. 4. • Limited access • No global search • No functional hyperlinks • No flexible data visualization • No submission standards • (Almost) no statistics • No text/data-mining • No effective way to sort, filter and discover • No scientific impact analysis • No networking feature • etc. …it’s like the web in 1995!
  5. 5. Scientific data in peril
  6. 6. Non-existent software archives
  7. 7. • Institutional email • Institutional webspace • Institutional blog • Library access card • Open access repository • No archiving of texts • No archiving of code • No archiving of data
  8. 8. Only read publications from high-ranking journals
  9. 9. 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.
  10. 10. Only read publications from high-ranking journals
  11. 11. Only publish in high-ranking journals
  12. 12. Brown, E. N., & Ramaswamy, S. (2007). Quality of protein crystal structures. Acta Crystallographica Section D Biological Crystallography, 63(9), 941–950. doi:10.1107/S0907444907033847
  13. 13. Munafò, M., Stothart, G., & Flint, J. (2009). Bias in genetic association studies and impact factor Molecular Psychiatry, 14 (2), 119-120 DOI: 10.1038/mp.2008.77
  14. 14. Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, 7. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291
  15. 15. Fang et al. (2012): Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. PNAS 109 no. 42 17028-17033
  16. 16. Data from: Fang, F., & Casadevall, A. (2011). RETRACTED SCIENCE AND THE RETRACTION INDEX Infection and Immunity DOI: 10.1128/IAI.05661-11
  17. 17. Journal rank is a figment of our imagination.
  18. 18. “High-Impact” journals attract the most unreliable research
  19. 19. (Sources: Van Noorden, R. (2013). Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature 495, 426–9; Packer, A. L. (2010). The SciELO Open Access: A Gold Way from the South. Can. J. High. Educ. 39, 111–126) Costs[thousandUS$/article] Legacy SciELO
  20. 20. The disaster that is our digital infrastructure
  21. 21. Science, tear down this paywall!
  22. 22. (Sources: Van Noorden, R. (2013). Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature 495, 426–9; Packer, A. L. (2010). The SciELO Open Access: A Gold Way from the South. Can. J. High. Educ. 39, 111–126) Potentialforinnovation:9.8bp.a. Costs[thousandUS$/article] Legacy SciELO
  23. 23. • Harvest all accessible publications – Database with single interface – Not just from green repositories – Everything that is not obviously illegal • Integrate resulting database – PubMed – Google Scholar • Plug the gaps:
  24. 24. • Global search and access for all literature, code and data • Intelligent sort, filter and discover functionalities • Scientific, evidence-based reputation system • Authoring tool for collaborative writing and single-click submission • Orders of magnitude cheaper: US$90/paper (e.g. SciELO) vs. US$5,000/paper (subscription)
  25. 25. Divide et impera: Don't let publishers distract you Source: Mike Taylor
  26. 26. Remember the mission We're not groping towards cost savings. Source: Mike Taylor
  27. 27. Remember the mission We're not groping towards cost savings. We're transforming what research is and how it's used. Source: Mike Taylor
  28. 28. A1 A2 C12 time citations published articles published year 1 year 2 year 3 Introduced in 1950’s by Eugene Garfield: ISI
  29. 29. 40 60 100 time citations published articles published year 1 year 2 year 3 Introduced in 1950’s by Eugene Garfield: ISI
  30. 30. 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)
  31. 31. • Negotiable • Irreproducible • Mathematically unsound
  32. 32. • 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…
  33. 33. • Rockefeller University Press bought their data from Thomson Reuters • Up to 19% deviation from published records • Second dataset still not correct Rossner M, van Epps H, Hill E (2007): Show me the data. The Journal of Cell Biology, Vol. 179, No. 6, 1091-1092 http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/content/full/179/6/1091
  34. 34. • Left-skewed distributions • Weak correlation of individual article citation rate with journal IF Seglen 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

×