Post on 14-Apr-2017
transcript
Why canceling subscriptions may just yet save scholarship
Björn BrembsUniversität Regensburg - Neurogenetics
http://brembs.net - @brembs
Scholarly Infrastructurean obscenely expensive anachronism
antiquated tax-waste counter-productive
I II III
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!
“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
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
“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.)
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.
Negotiable
https://quantixed.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/the-great-curve-ii-citation-distributions-and-reverse-engineering-the-jif/
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/
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
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
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
APC-OA?
“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
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