Upload
bjoern-brembs
View
233
Download
1
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
We need to solve more than our access problems
Björn BrembsUniversität Regensburg - Neurogenetics
http://brembs.net - @brembs
Scholarly Infrastructurean obscenely expensive anachronism
antiquated tax-waste counter-productive
I II III
SCHOLARSHIP
Scientists produce publications, data and code
PROBLEM I.1
Dysfunctional scholarly literature
Antiquated Functionality• 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!
Literature
Provided by:
Literature
Provided by:
Literature
Provided by:
PROBLEM I.2
Scientific data in peril
Small Data – Long Tail
Report on Integration of Data and Publications, ODE Report 2011http://www.alliancepermanentaccess.org/wp-content/plugins/download-monitor/download.php?id=ODE+Report+on+Integration+of+Data+and+Publications
PROBLEM I.3
Non-existent software archives
UNIVAC (A-2) 1953
DIGITALIZATION
I. Antiquated and missing functionality
Publishers parasitize public funds
Cost
s [th
ousa
nd U
S$/a
rticle
]
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)
(SciELOUbiquityScholasticaScienceOpenPeerJF1000ResearchFrontiersetc.)
MONEY FOR NOTHING
II. Wasting billions on a parasitic industry
More and Better!
Application Instructions
Application Instructions
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.
Main Problems with the IF• Negotiable • Irreproducible • Mathematically
unsound
Methodology
Journal Rank
Qua
lity
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
Misconduct
Fang et al. (2012): Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109
Journal Rank
Frau
d
QUALITY?
“High-Impact” journals attract the most unreliable research
Statistical Power and Sample Size
Source: Daniel Lakens DOI: 10.1177/1745691614528520
Statistical Power and Sample Size
Source: Daniel Lakens DOI: 10.1177/1745691614528520
Statistical Power and Sample Size
Source: Daniel Lakens DOI: 10.1177/1745691614528520
Statistical Power and Sample Size
Productivity
Research questions:True:False:Significant:
20010010040
88444437
DOI: 10.1098/rsos.160384
PRODUCTIVITY?
“Publish-or-Perish” disadvantages meticulous scientists
Freedman LP, Cockburn IM, Simcoe TS (2015) http://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002165
Irreproducibility
61%(n=100)
Open Science Collaboration
INCENTIVES
III. Counting Quality & Productivity => Selecting the sloppy scientists
SO MUCH FOR THAT
The disaster that is our scholarly infrastructure
OPEN ACCESS ACTIVISM“Pretty please be open!”
575+ such solutions and counting…
Institutions are trying…
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
WHAT NOW?
Save time and money (and make science open by default as an added benefit)
Potential for Innovation
(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)
Potential for innovation: 9.8b p.a.
Cost
s [th
ousa
nd U
S$/a
rticle
]
Legacy SciELO
1. International Coordination
LEGAL
2. Cancel all subscriptions
3. Implement current technology
The square traversal process has been the foundation of scholarly
communication for nearly 400 years!
Negotiable• 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…
Negotiable
https://quantixed.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/the-great-curve-ii-citation-distributions-and-reverse-engineering-the-jif/
June, 2014 (19 months)
Not Reproducible• 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
Not Mathematically Sound• 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
Not Mathematically Sound
https://quantixed.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/the-great-curve-ii-citation-distributions-and-reverse-engineering-the-jif/
‘QUALITY’
Is journal rank like astrology?
Methodology I
Macleod MR, et al. (2015) Risk of Bias in Reports of In Vivo Research: A Focus for Improvement. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273
Methodology II
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
Methodology III
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
‘Quality’
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
Excel Errors
DOI: 10.1186/s13059-016-1044-7 -omics studies
p-Value Errors
Cog. Neurosci & PsychDOI: 10.1101/071530
Journal Rank and Fraud/Error
Fang et al. (2012): Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. PNAS 109 no. 42 17028-17033
Journal Rank and Fraud/Error
Fang et al. (2012): Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. PNAS 109 no. 42 17028-17033
Replication in Psychology
Open Science Collaboration Science 2015;349:aac4716
Replication in Psychology
Open Science Collaboration Science 2015;349:aac4716
Software to control the experiment and save the data
Software to analyze and visualize the data
GitHub
Scientific Code with Persistent Identifiers
They parasitize public funds
+70%
They parasitize public funds
“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