Ape 2017

A new model for  
faster communication  
of research
Kaveh Bazargan
www.RiverValleyTechnologies.com

@kaveh1000www.RiverValleyTechnologies.com
About us
• 28 years in publishing
• Typesetting of academic books and journals
• Last 10 years, put our systems into cloud
• Moving from service industry to SaaS
• Authoring
• Peer review
• Auto-pagination

Our clients

Current publishing model
• The academic “paper” is 350 years old
• Not going to change next year or even in 10 years
• But let’s stand back and examine the system

Complaints about 
scholarly publishing
(perceived or real)

Delay in publication
• The “Paper” is the currency of academic impact
• But research is not “paper-shaped” – so takes time
• And needs peer review, proofreading, author
correction, typesetting…
• …Typically 1 year from discovery to dissemination

Plagiarization and
misconduct
• 1 in 3 admit questionable practice to get published
• Increase in retractions in recent years
• “Purchased” papers, e.g. China, Middle East

Bias in review
• Gender bias – e.g. research by Cassidy Sugimoto
• Early career researchers fear “retribution” in review

Insufﬁcient attribution
• 100s or 1000s of authors, but…
• who contributed most
• who did what – theory, data analysis, narrative

And a few more problems
• Unreadable jargon, opaque for non-specialist
• Negative results not published
• Salami slicing to maximise publications

An alternative way to
communicate research?

A look at
StackExchange

Why so much effort?
• Programmers want recognition by peers
• … just like academics

A bit more about
StackExchange
• Strict code of conduct, moderated by community
• Reputation is gained in time by contribution
• Every contribution can be voted up or down
• Job portal connects with employers

Let’s imagine a similar
site for research…

microbiology.org
• Open for all to see
• Register using real name or pseudonym
• Members can vote peers’ work (up or down)

A typical scenario
• Jeff Lewis uploads new data and hypothesis
• Peers vote for data gathering and original idea
• bio532 creates visualisation of data
• bio532 gets votes for data visualisation
• micro_bio_guy analyses data
• micro_bio_guy gets votes for data analysis

A user proﬁle
Theoretical insight
Data quality
Data analysis
Data visualisation
Copy editing
Bibliography
Clear explanation

Now imagine…
• Universities and funders note reputation on site
• Applicants for academic posts include reputation
• University can judge
• Precise expertise (experimental or theoretical)
• Teaching ability

Bias minimised
• Applicants for posts could be anonymous until
interview date
• … so no race, age or gender bias

Do we need a
publisher?

Absolutely!

We need narrative
• Anyone (e.g. journalist) can write the “story”
• Any publisher can publish (open or subscription)
• Can publish part of research or combine research
• Publishers might “scout” the site
• Not a formal paper but a readable narrative
• Fully peer reviewed

Advantages of new system
• Research moves fast
• No bias (identities can be hidden)
• All do what they like and are good at
• No plagiarization, misconduct, retractions
• Anyone can contribute
• Better publications

Ape 2017

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Ape 2017

Similar to Ape 2017 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Ape 2017