Keynote address at OpenCon 2015 in Brussels, Belgium. Video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3rK-tt3UlYs

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

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

3. Scientists produce publications, data
and code

4. Dysfunctional scholarly literature

5. • Limited access
• 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 networking feature
• etc.
…it’s like the
web in 1995!

6. Scientific data in peril

7. 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. Non-existent software archives

12. • Email
• Webspace
• Blog
• Library access card
• ‘Green’ OA repository
• No archiving of publications
• No archiving of code
• No archiving of data

13. 575+ solutions and counting…

14. Only the best publish in high-ranking journals

15. • Negotiable
• Irreproducible
• Mathematically
unsound
Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291

17. Is journal prestige like astrology?

18. The weakening relationship between the Impact Factor and papers' citations in the digital age (2012): George A. Lozano, Vincent Lariviere, Yves Gingras arXiv:1205.4328

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

20. Brembs, B., Button, K., & Munafò, M. (2013). Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank. doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291

21. Munafò, M., Stothart, G., & Flint, J. (2009). Bias in genetic association studies and impact factor DOI: 10.1038/mp.2008.77

22. Brown, E. N., & Ramaswamy, S. (2007).
Quality of protein crystal structures.
doi:10.1107/S0907444907033847

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

24. Fang et al. (2012): Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109

25. Data from: Fang, F., & Casadevall, A. (2011). RETRACTED SCIENCE AND THE RETRACTION INDEX DOI: 10.1128/IAI.05661-11

30. “Do you trust scientists?”

34. The disaster that is our digital
infrastructure

37. “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

38. Save time and money by making science
open by default as an added benefit

42. Effortless, low-risk and by default

44. Software to control the experiment and save the data

45. Software to analyze and visualize the data

61. 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.

62. 1) Publish in the “Journal of Unreliable
Research” of your field – or take your chances
#getyourGlam

63. 2) Publish everything else where publication is
quick and where it can be widely read
#dontwastetimepublishing

64. 3) Ask your PI what will happen to all the work
you put into your code & data and how you can
get as many people as possible to use it
#openscience

65. 1. #getyourGlam
2. #dontwastetimepublishing
3. #openscience
4. #wearyouropenonyoursleeve

67. (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

71. Scientific source code

72. Research data

73. Narrative

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