O slideshow foi denunciado.
Utilizamos seu perfil e dados de atividades no LinkedIn para personalizar e exibir anúncios mais relevantes. Altere suas preferências de anúncios quando desejar.

Upgrading the Scholarly Infrastructure

76 visualizações

Publicada em

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

Publicada em: Ciências
  • Seja o primeiro a comentar

  • Seja a primeira pessoa a gostar disto

Upgrading the Scholarly Infrastructure

  1. 1. Björn Brembs Universität Regensburg http://brembs.net - @brembs
  2. 2. an obscenely expensive anachronism
  3. 3. Scientists produce publications, data and code
  4. 4. Dysfunctional scholarly literature
  5. 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. 6. Scientific data in peril
  7. 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. 8. Non-existent software archives
  9. 9. Antiquated and missing functionality
  10. 10. 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)
  11. 11. Wasting billions on a parasitic industry
  12. 12. 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
  13. 13. Fang et al. (2012): Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1212247109 Journal Rank Fraud
  14. 14. “High-Impact” journals attract the most unreliable research
  15. 15. Quality & Productivity: Selecting the sloppy scientists
  16. 16. The disaster that is our information infrastructure
  17. 17. “Pretty please be open!”
  18. 18. Software to control the experiment and save the data
  19. 19. Software to analyze and visualize the data
  20. 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. 21. 1) Publish in the “Journal of Unreliable Research” of your field – or take your chances
  22. 22. 2) Publish everything else where publication is quick and where it can be widely read
  23. 23. 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
  24. 24. 1. Publish where you need to 2. Don‘t waste time 3. Pester your PI for the infrastructure you need
  25. 25. 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
  26. 26. “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
  27. 27. Journal Impact Factor PLoS One 2.806 Scientific Reports 4.259
  28. 28. Gold (APC) OA alone may make things even worse!
  29. 29. Why have 25 years of campaigning accomplished so little?
  30. 30. Effortless, low-risk and by default
  31. 31. (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
  32. 32. LEGAL
  33. 33. Talk to your librarian today about your support for subscription cancellations!
  34. 34. The square traversal process has been the foundation of scholarly communication for nearly 400 years!

×