This document discusses rethinking research and publication with a view towards impact. It argues that traditional subscription-based publishing models have downsides like restricting access and fostering behaviors that undermine trust in research. However, moving to more open models presents challenges and risks as well. The document advocates for more open preprints, open access journals with open peer review, making data and software accessible, and developing post-publication reward systems independent of journals to better incentivize quality research. Overall it examines how to realize the benefits of openness while mitigating the potential downsides of more open publishing models.

1. Re-thinking research with a view to impact:
an academic perspective
Stephen Curry
Imperial College

2. Excitement about digital opportunities
April2003

3. Is that what people mean by ‘open access’?
TheincredulityofSaintThomas,Caravaggio
Doubts about the digital world

4. Impact: why do people become researchers?
• To understand the world
• To change the world
• To be remembered
Christopher Weyant, The New Yorker

5. The digital world and the myth of measurement

6. The digital world and the myth of measurement

7. Measurement has its uses…

8. …but where are the limits?

9. take over?

10. Christopher Weyant, The New Yorker
Coming: 9th July
The Metric Tide
Report of the Independent Review
of the Role of Metrics in Research
Assessment and Management
July 2015

11. Re-thinking: what is good research?
• Transformative understanding
• Structure of DNA, RNAi, Higgs boson
• Transformative methods
• X-ray crystallography, PCR, CRISPR
• Transformative technology
• Silicon chip, graphene
• Transformative impact
• Policy, behaviour, legislation

12. How do we “measure” good research
• Publication in a high impact factor journal
• Citation counts
• Expert evaluation

13. Culture sustains traditional (subscription model) publishing
• Benefits
• High bar to entry spurs competition
• Downsides
• High bar to entry slows publication, reduces researcher productivity
• Conservative peer review
• Eye-catching research trumps quality?
• IF-based rewards foster cheating
• Cheating undermines public trust
• Restricts access
• Poor fit to public policy in the digital age
Dame
Janet
Finch:
“The
principle
that
the
results
of
research
that
has
been
publicly
funded
should
be
freely
accessible
in
the
public
domain
is…
fundamentally
unanswerable.”

14. Re-imagining scientific publication in the open era
• Universal preprints (like arXiv)
• Rapid dissemination
• Constructive/collaborative criticism
• Commenter credit
• Open Access Journals
• Open, PLOS-style peer review: original & competent research
• Confirmatory studies or negative results also encouraged
• Reviewer credit
• Competition on service and price: value for money
• Universal access: more readers - more scrutiny
• Accessible Data/Software
• Re-use and re-analysis
• Disincentive to fraud

15. Downsides and challenges
• Quality concerns of pay-to-publish model?
• Bohannon, Beall, and vanity publishing? Mitigated by openness
• Delegation of quality control to the reader:
mistakes only detected after publication?
• Especially risky for medical research?
• BIG question: How do we get the incentives right?
• Post-publication reward mechanisms that are journal-independent
• Evaluate academics on what they do (research+; see DORA)
• Do we need selective journals to foster high-quality research?
• Do we need journals to foster disciplines & sub-disciplines?

16. Thank You