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.

Why canceling subscriptions may just yet save scholarship

301 views

Published on

Presentation at LMU Munich in October, 2016

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Why canceling subscriptions may just yet save scholarship

  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. “In the end, it is a fascinating commentary that the world of academia, from which the modern web sprung, has been among the most resistant to change and one of the last to embrace the internet revolution.” Kalev Leetaru, Forbes Magazine
  7. 7. Provided by:
  8. 8. Provided by:
  9. 9. Provided by:
  10. 10. Scientific data in peril
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. Non-existent software archives
  13. 13. I. Antiquated and missing functionality
  14. 14. 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.)
  15. 15. II. Wasting billions on a parasitic industry
  16. 16. 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.
  17. 17. • Negotiable • Irreproducible • Mathematically unsound
  18. 18. https://quantixed.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/the-great-curve-ii-citation-distributions-and-reverse-engineering-the-jif/
  19. 19. • 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
  20. 20. • 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
  21. 21. https://quantixed.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/the-great-curve-ii-citation-distributions-and-reverse-engineering-the-jif/
  22. 22. Is journal rank like astrology?
  23. 23. Macleod MR, et al. (2015) Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273
  24. 24. 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
  25. 25. 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
  26. 26. 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
  27. 27. DOI: 10.1186/s13059-016-1044-7 -omics studies
  28. 28. Cog. Neurosci & PsychDOI: 10.1101/071530
  29. 29. “High-Impact” journals attract the most unreliable research
  30. 30. Source: Daniel Lakens DOI: 10.1177/1745691614528520
  31. 31. Source: Daniel Lakens DOI: 10.1177/1745691614528520
  32. 32. Source: Daniel Lakens DOI: 10.1177/1745691614528520
  33. 33. Research questions: True: False: Significant: 200 100 100 40 88 44 44 37
  34. 34. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160384
  35. 35. “Publish-or-Perish” disadvantages meticulous scientists
  36. 36. 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
  37. 37. III. Counting Quality & Productivity => Selecting the sloppy scientists
  38. 38. The disaster that is our scholarly infrastructure
  39. 39. “Pretty please be open!”
  40. 40. Software to control the experiment and save the data
  41. 41. Software to analyze and visualize the data
  42. 42. 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
  43. 43. “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
  44. 44. Save time and money (and make science open by default as an added benefit)
  45. 45. (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
  46. 46. LEGAL
  47. 47. The square traversal process has been the foundation of scholarly communication for nearly 400 years!

×