Scott Edmunds #Force2015 vision talk: Publishing and crediting different shaped research objects the GigaScience way, 13th January 2015

1. Publishing and crediting different shaped
research objects the way
0000-0001-6444-1436
@SCEdmunds
scott@gigasciencejournal.comScott Edmunds, #FORCE2015

2. 1665-2015 style publication: problems
• Article structure & journal policies (Ingelfinger, etc.) prevents
transparency, dissuades sharing of data & methods
• Lack of reproducibility is the norm. Ioannidis: “an estimated
85% of research resources are wasted”1
• “Industrial scale” ghostwriting of papers by Chinese
companies & pharma, with ID theft & fake referees to
guarantee JIF publication2-3
1. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747
2.http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/about/upload/Senator-Grassley-Report.pdf
3. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/for-sale-your-name-here-in-a-prestigious-science-journal/

3. Data
Methods
Answer
Metadata
softwareAnalysis
(Pipelines)
Workflows/
protocols
Idea
Study
Anatomy of a (Reproducible) Publication?
Data Publication
Software Publication
Workflow Publication
Virtual Machine Publication
Knitr Publication

4. Death to the Publication. Long live the Research Object!
Manifesto for a reproducible publisher:
The era of the 1665-style publication is over
Reward replication not advertising
We credit FAIR data, not JIF-bait narrative
Granularity ≠ salami slicing. Ingelfinger is the enemy
We need a recognizable score(s)/mark/badge for replication
Separate category in ORCID for actually usable things
?