Some suggestions for improving the scholarly infrastructure and contribute to combat replicability issues in science.

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

2. an obscenely expensive anachronism

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

8. Non-existent software archives

10. Antiquated and missing functionality

11. 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)

12. Wasting billions on a parasitic industry

14. Journal Rank
Quality
Berghmans et al. (2002): doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdg203, Tressoldi et al. (2013) doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0056180, Brembs et al. (2013)
doi:10.3389/fnhum.2013.00291, Fraley & Vazire (2014) doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0109019, Macleod et al. (2015) doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1002273

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

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

17. Quality & Productivity: Selecting the
sloppy scientists

18. The disaster that is our information
infrastructure

19. “Pretty please be open!”

23. Software to control the experiment and save the data

24. Software to analyze and visualize the data

43. 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.

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

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

46. 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

47. 1. Publish where you need to
2. Don‘t waste time
3. Pester your PI for the
infrastructure you need

52. 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

56. “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

57. Journal Impact Factor
PLoS One 2.806
Scientific Reports 4.259

59. Gold (APC) OA alone may make things even worse!

61. Why have 25 years of campaigning
accomplished so little?

66. Effortless, low-risk and by default

69. (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

70. LEGAL

74. Talk to your librarian today about your
support for subscription cancellations!

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