1.
Björn Brembs
Universität Regensburg
http://brembs.net - @brembs

2.
Curated, preserved, disseminated and understood

3.
Software to control the experiment and save the data

4.
Software to analyze and visualize the data

5.
The disaster that is scholarly
information infrastructure

6.
Scientists produce code, data and
publications

7.
UNIVAC (A-2) 1953: share and re-use of code/software

8.
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

9.
10.1038/nature.2013.14416

10.
Antiquated functionality, counter-
productive

11.
• Obsolete modes of access
• Journal prestige correlates with unreliability
• No scientific impact analysis
• Suboptimal peer-review
• Massive transparency issues
• No effective sort, filter and discover solution
• No functional hyperlinks
• Static data visualizations
• No content mining
• No social component
• No global search
• Hardly any user statistics
• etc.…it’s like the internet in 1995!

12.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291/full and https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fnhum.2018.00037/full

13.
Journal Rank
Quality
Berghmans et al. (2002): doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdg203, Tressoldi et al. (2013) doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056180, Brembs et al. (2013)
doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291, Fraley & Vazire (2014) doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0109019, Macleod et al. (2015) doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273

14.
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160384

15.
Counting Prestige & Productivity
=> Incentivizing unreliable science

16.
“Do you trust scientists?”

17.
Breitbart, Dec. 2016: http://www.breitbart.com/london/2016/10/28/hear-scientist-talk-peer-review-reach-browning

18.
Financial support for a dysfunctional,
superfluous and counter-productive
infrastructure component

19.
Neglecting the crucial components of
scholarship

20.
Sources: Van Noorden, R. (2013). Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature 495, 426–429
The 2018 STM report: https://www.stm-assoc.org/2018_10_04_STM_Report_2018.pdf
Annual approximate journal revenue US$ 10B
Published peer-reviewed articles per year, approx. 2M
Cost per TA article US$ 5,000

21.
Online submission US$ 21.70
DOI US$ 1.94
Plagiarism detection US$ 0.95
Fundref US$ 0.31
Bibliographic reference normalization US$ 25.00
Production of XML, PDFWeb, PDF for Print and EPUB US$ 100.00
indexing, online publication and interoperability US$ 66.45
Costs per OA article US$ 216.35
https://peerj.com/preprints/27809/

22.
Online submission US$ 21.70
DOI US$ 1.94
Plagiarism detection US$ 0.95
Fundref US$ 0.31
Bibliographic reference normalization US$ 25.00
Production of XML, PDFWeb, PDF for Print and EPUB US$ 100.00
indexing, online publication and interoperability US$ 66.45
Costs per OA article US$ 216.35
https://peerj.com/preprints/27809/

23.
The disaster that is scholarly
information infrastructure

24.
• R: Journal rank promotes unreliability and prevents change
• A: Journals waste the money we need for data and code
• F: Journals provide only antiquated functionalities

25.
216,35
5000
SERVICE CONTENT
perarticlecost[US$]
Potentialforreform:US$9.56billionp.a.
tomorrow today
~3 billion / year
~2 billion / year

26.
216,35
5000
SERVICE CONTENT
perarticlecost[US$]
Potentialforreform:US$9.56billionp.a.
tomorrow today
• Substitutable Services (-> competition!)
• No author facing costs
• Journal functionalities can be copied
• Cost-neutral solutions for data/code
• No individual mandates necessary
• No journals, no need to judge journal quality
• …
• …
• …
• …
• …
• …
• Side effect: permanent, legal, public access
A sustainable scholarly infrastructure:

27.
1. Build on available standards and guidelines to establish
a certification process for a sustainable scholarly
infrastructure
2. Funders require institutional certification before
reviewing grant applications
3. Institutions use subscription funds to implement
infrastructure for certification
Plan I
(for infrastructure)