Presentation at Roskilde open access symposium, October 2016

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

2. an obscenely expensive anachronism
antiquated tax-waste counter-productive

3. Scientists produce publications, data
and code

4. Dysfunctional scholarly literature

5. • 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!

6. Provided by:

7. Provided by:

8. Provided by:

9. Scientific data in peril

10. 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

11. Non-existent software archives

13. I. Antiquated and missing functionality

14. 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.)

15. II. Wasting billions on a parasitic
industry

20. 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.

21. • Negotiable
• Irreproducible
• Mathematically
unsound

22. Journal Rank
Quality
sources: 10.1093/annonc/mdg203, 10.1371/journal.pone.0056180, 10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291,
10.1371/journal.pone.0109019, 10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273, 10.1101/071530, 10.1186/s13059-016-1044-7

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

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

26. Source: Daniel Lakens DOI: 10.1177/1745691614528520

27. Source: Daniel Lakens DOI: 10.1177/1745691614528520

28. Source: Daniel Lakens DOI: 10.1177/1745691614528520

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

31. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160384

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

33. 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

34. III. Counting Quality & Productivity
=> Selecting the sloppy scientists

35. The disaster that is our scholarly
infrastructure

36. “Pretty please be open!”

46. 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

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

50. (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

51. LEGAL

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

57. • PLoS Medicine, IF 2-11 (8.4)
(The PLoS Medicine Editors (2006) The Impact Factor Game. PLoS Med 3(6): e291.
http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0030291)
• Current Biology IF from 7 to 11 in
2003
– Bought by Cell Press (Elsevier) in 2001…

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

64. • 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

65. • 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

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

67. Is journal rank like astrology?

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

69. 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

70. 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

71. 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

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

73. Cog. Neurosci & PsychDOI: 10.1101/071530

74. Fang et al. (2012): Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. PNAS 109 no. 42 17028-17033

75. Fang et al. (2012): Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. PNAS 109 no. 42 17028-17033

76. Open Science Collaboration Science 2015;349:aac4716

77. Open Science Collaboration Science 2015;349:aac4716

79. Software to control the experiment and save the data

80. Software to analyze and visualize the data

93. “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