Openness and transparency are core principles ofscience but are violated at several points in the research process. Here are diferent examples what is wrong and how we can fix it.
Core Unit Systems Medicine, Universit¨ at W¨ urzburg July 14th, 2014, MPI-CBG Dresden The opinions expressed here represent my own and not those of my employer.
the word open to science.” Eduardo Robles https://twitter.com/edulix/status/219390289519968256 http://www.flickr.com/photos/subcircle/500995147 – CC-BY by flickr user subcircle
launching a drug development program - 20–25% of published data reproducible (Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 712, 2011) Similar approach performed at Amgen - reproducibility rate of 11% (Nature 483, 531–533, 2012) http://www.flickr.com/photos/subcircle/500995147 – CC-BY by flickr user subcircle
knowledge Scientists transfer the copyright of the resulting manuscript* to commercial publishers for free in exchange for free** publication. Library (publicly funded) buys*** the journal subscription from publisher while the broad public has no access. * After peer review performed by other publicly funded scientists ** Oh, colored/extra pages!?! Well, then we need to charge a small fee! *** Often in bundles of journals and after signing a NDA about the prices negotiations http://www.flickr.com/photos/subcircle/500995147 – CC-BY by flickr user subcircle
over-prized and hampering the exchange of knowledge. It is obscene and embarrassing that this a core instrument of the scientific community. https://secure.flickr.com/photos/96302395@N00/2514147406 – CC-BY by flickr user Malinki
create community-run, open-access journals based on open repositories like arXiv. http://www.flickr.com/photos/subcircle/500995147 – CC-BY by flickr user subcircle
real-time update of ”articles” Contributions are trackable Avoiding of redundancy (”Background” etc.) http://www.flickr.com/photos/subcircle/500995147 – CC-BY by flickr user subcircle
data of a project becomes part of the publication. Needed: The full data set becomes public with the manuscript. Optimum: Data is immediately after generation public. http://www.flickr.com/photos/subcircle/500995147 – CC-BY by flickr user subcircle
In the current system this is not necessarily the best for the scientists. http://www.flickr.com/photos/subcircle/500995147 – CC-BY by flickr user subcircle
to adapt optimally to the given evaluation/funding system. Due to this we have to generate a system which promotes openness and has incentives to share results. http://www.flickr.com/photos/subcircle/500995147 – CC-BY by flickr user subcircle
”papers” but also shared data, manuscript review, comments etc. ORCID compiles different typs of ”works” Alternative metrics - beyond impact factors, h-index (etc.) http://www.flickr.com/photos/subcircle/500995147 – CC-BY by flickr user subcircle
Lack of flexibility Formalization is hard Vendor lock-in ⇒ open standards required http://www.flickr.com/photos/tallkev/256810217/ – CC-BY by flickr user tallkev
are not using the full potential of available technologies to implement openness in our research workflow We need a culture of openness and incentives to open up science http://www.flickr.com/photos/subcircle/500995147 – CC-BY by flickr user subcircle
journals Use/promote pre-print servers (arXiv, bioRxiv) Use/promote specialized data repositories as well as general-purpose repositories to publish you research data Think ”open” http://www.flickr.com/photos/subcircle/500995147 – CC-BY by flickr user subcircle