The document discusses the challenges and shortcomings of the current scholarly publishing system, emphasizing the negative impact of journal rankings and the issues surrounding reproducibility in research. It highlights the advantages of open science and transparency while criticizing the costs and inefficiencies associated with traditional publishing practices. The author argues for a shift towards more reliable and accessible scientific communications to improve research quality.

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

4. 15th century: Adoration of the lamb

5. 21st century: Adoration of the Glam

10. 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.

11. • Negotiable
• Irreproducible
• Mathematically
unsound

15. https://quantixed.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/the-great-curve-ii-citation-distributions-and-reverse-engineering-the-jif/

18. • 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

19. • 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

20. https://quantixed.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/the-great-curve-ii-citation-distributions-and-reverse-engineering-the-jif/

21. Is journal rank like astrology?

22. Macleod MR, et al. (2015) Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273

23. 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

24. 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

25. 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

26. DOI: 10.1186/s13059-016-1044-7
-omics studies

27. Cog. Neurosci & PsychDOI: 10.1101/071530

28. “High-Impact” journals attract the
most unreliable research

30. Source: Daniel Lakens DOI: 10.1177/1745691614528520

31. Source: Daniel Lakens DOI: 10.1177/1745691614528520

32. Source: Daniel Lakens DOI: 10.1177/1745691614528520

34. Research questions:
True:
False:
Significant:
200
100
100
40
88
44
44
37

38. “Publish-or-Perish” disadvantages
meticulous scientists

39. 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

40. Counting ‘Quality’ & Productivity
=> Selecting the sloppy scientists

41. an obscenely expensive anachronism

42. Dysfunctional scholarly literature

43. • 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!

44. Scientific data in peril

45. 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

46. Non-existent software archives

48. Antiquated and missing functionality

49. 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.)

50. Wasting billions on a parasitic industry

51. The disaster that is our scholarly
infrastructure

52. “Pretty please be open!”

70. 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

73. “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

74. Save time and money (and make science
open by default as an added benefit)

76. (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

77. LEGAL

82. The square traversal process has been the
foundation of scholarly communication for nearly
400 years!