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.
Revive the core principles of science Konrad U. F¨ orstner 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.
Why Open Science? ”It’s a tragedy we had to add 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
Why Open Science? Openness and transparency are core principles of science but are violated at several points in the research process. http://www.flickr.com/photos/subcircle/500995147 – CC-BY by flickr user subcircle
Examples for low reproducibility Study performed at Bayer prior to 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
Research workflow – spot the error Scientists (publicly funded) generate 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
In 2013 Elsevier had a profit margin of 39%! http://poeticeconomics.blogspot.de/2014/03/elsevier-stm-publishing-profits-rise-to.html http://www.flickr.com/photos/subcircle/500995147 – CC-BY by flickr user subcircle
My very personal opinion The subscription-based publication system is obsolete, over-prized and hampering the exchange of knowledge.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/[email protected]/2514147406 – CC-BY by flickr user Malinki
Open Access journals Luckily there is a growing number of open-access journals and pressure by funding bodies. http://www.flickr.com/photos/subcircle/500995147 – CC-BY by flickr user subcircle
Still, the concept of the immutable publications, publisher and journals should reconsidered. http://www.flickr.com/photos/subcircle/500995147 – CC-BY by flickr user subcircle
From publisher to open repositories The Episciences Project aims to 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
Writing scientific article in Wikis / version control systems Constant, 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
Open (Research) Data Making all experimental and derived data accessible. http://www.flickr.com/photos/subcircle/500995147 – CC-BY by flickr user subcircle
Open (Research) Data Currently: A selected subset of the experimental 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
Sharing the data immediately would be the best for science. 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
Aligning the interests Scientist compete for limited resources and try 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
New measurements of scientific impact are required Not only measure ”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
Besides these technical approaches we have to change our research culture. This is hard and one of the major challenges. http://www.flickr.com/photos/subcircle/500995147 – CC-BY by flickr user subcircle
Automation of science Use formalization of experimental protocols and open standards to implement automated research. http://www.flickr.com/photos/tallkev/256810217/ – CC-BY by flickr user tallkev
Current challenges Price (as long as not coming a commondity) 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
Summary Openness and transparency are core principle of science We 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
What can you do right now (easily)? Use/promote Open Acces 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
konrad
mkkon
kayceesrk
genomethica
doradora09
trycycle
ynakano
akiratosei
nagano
keichi
usamik26
s1ok69oo
ishiijunpei
sonatard
shpigford
trallard
stephaniewalter
jlugia
rasmusluckow
kastner
moore
chrislema
erikaheidi
ddemaree
chriscoyier