The document criticizes the current scholarly publishing system as antiquated and dysfunctional, lacking many features that modern web technologies provide. It notes the system is expensive yet provides limited access and functionality. Alternative open access models are proposed that could save billions spent on the current "parasitic" commercial publishing industry while better serving scientists by making publications, data and code openly accessible and reusable.

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. “In the end, it is a fascinating commentary that the world of academia, from
which the modern web sprung, has been among the most resistant to
change and one of the last to embrace the internet revolution.”
Kalev Leetaru, Forbes Magazine

7. Provided by:

8. Provided by:

9. Provided by:

10. Scientific data in peril

11. 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

12. Non-existent software archives

14. I. Antiquated and missing functionality

15. 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.)

16. II. Wasting billions on a parasitic
industry

21. 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.

22. • Negotiable
• Irreproducible
• Mathematically
unsound

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

29. • 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

30. • 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

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

32. Is journal rank like astrology?

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

34. 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

35. 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

36. 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

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

38. Cog. Neurosci & PsychDOI: 10.1101/071530

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

41. Source: Daniel Lakens DOI: 10.1177/1745691614528520

42. Source: Daniel Lakens DOI: 10.1177/1745691614528520

43. Source: Daniel Lakens DOI: 10.1177/1745691614528520

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

46. DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160384

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

48. 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

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

50. The disaster that is our scholarly
infrastructure

51. “Pretty please be open!”

59. Software to control the experiment and save the data

60. Software to analyze and visualize the data

76. 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

79. “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

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

82. (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

83. LEGAL

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