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.

We need to solve more that just our access problems

328 views

Published on

Presentation at Roskilde open access symposium, October 2016

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

We need to solve more that just our access problems

  1. 1. Björn Brembs Universität Regensburg - Neurogenetics http://brembs.net - @brembs
  2. 2. an obscenely expensive anachronism antiquated tax-waste counter-productive
  3. 3. Scientists produce publications, data and code
  4. 4. Dysfunctional scholarly literature
  5. 5. • Limited access • Link-rot • 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 semantic enrichment • No networking feature • etc. …it’s like the web in 1995!
  6. 6. Provided by:
  7. 7. Provided by:
  8. 8. Provided by:
  9. 9. Scientific data in peril
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. Non-existent software archives
  12. 12. I. Antiquated and missing functionality
  13. 13. Costs[thousandUS$/article] Legacy Modern (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) (SciELO Ubiquity Scholastica ScienceOpen PeerJ F1000Research Frontiers etc.)
  14. 14. II. Wasting billions on a parasitic industry
  15. 15. 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.
  16. 16. • Negotiable • Irreproducible • Mathematically unsound
  17. 17. Journal Rank Quality sources: 10.1093/annonc/mdg203, 10.1371/journal.pone.0056180, 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291, 10.1371/journal.pone.0109019, 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273, 10.1101/071530, 10.1186/s13059-016-1044-7
  18. 18. Fang et al. (2012): Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109 Journal Rank Fraud
  19. 19. “High-Impact” journals attract the most unreliable research
  20. 20. Source: Daniel Lakens DOI: 10.1177/1745691614528520
  21. 21. Source: Daniel Lakens DOI: 10.1177/1745691614528520
  22. 22. Source: Daniel Lakens DOI: 10.1177/1745691614528520
  23. 23. Research questions: True: False: Significant: 200 100 100 40 88 44 44 37
  24. 24. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160384
  25. 25. “Publish-or-Perish” disadvantages meticulous scientists
  26. 26. Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS (2015) http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165 61% (n=100) Open Science Collaboration
  27. 27. III. Counting Quality & Productivity => Selecting the sloppy scientists
  28. 28. The disaster that is our scholarly infrastructure
  29. 29. “Pretty please be open!”
  30. 30. The Department of Psychology embraces the values of open science and strives for replicable and reproducible research. For this goal we support transparent research with open data, open material, and pre-registrations. Candidates are asked to describe in what way they already pursued and plan to pursue these goals. 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. versus
  31. 31. Save time and money (and make science open by default as an added benefit)
  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. LEGAL
  34. 34. The square traversal process has been the foundation of scholarly communication for nearly 400 years!
  35. 35. • 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…
  36. 36. https://quantixed.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/the-great-curve-ii-citation-distributions-and-reverse-engineering-the-jif/
  37. 37. • 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
  38. 38. • 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):497http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/314/7079/497
  39. 39. https://quantixed.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/the-great-curve-ii-citation-distributions-and-reverse-engineering-the-jif/
  40. 40. Is journal rank like astrology?
  41. 41. Macleod MR, et al. (2015) Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273
  42. 42. 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
  43. 43. 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
  44. 44. 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
  45. 45. DOI: 10.1186/s13059-016-1044-7 -omics studies
  46. 46. Cog. Neurosci & PsychDOI: 10.1101/071530
  47. 47. Fang et al. (2012): Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. PNAS 109 no. 42 17028-17033
  48. 48. Fang et al. (2012): Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. PNAS 109 no. 42 17028-17033
  49. 49. Open Science Collaboration Science 2015;349:aac4716
  50. 50. Open Science Collaboration Science 2015;349:aac4716
  51. 51. Software to control the experiment and save the data
  52. 52. Software to analyze and visualize the data
  53. 53. “The decision, based on market and competitor analysis, will bring Emerald’s APC pricing in line with the wider market, taking a mid-point position amongst its competitors.” Emerald spokesperson

×