3. What’s wrong with the current system?
• It takes too long to publish anything
4. What’s wrong with the current system?
• It takes too long to publish anything
• There are no good guides to quality for research assessment
5. What’s wrong with the current system?
• It takes too long to publish anything
• There are no good guides to quality for research assessment
• Problems of reproducibility, publication bias and ‘questionable
research practices’ [eg. p-hacking, HARKing, cherry-picking]
6. What’s wrong with the current system?
• It takes too long to publish anything
• There are no good guides to quality for research assessment
• Problems of reproducibility, publication bias and ‘questionable
research practices’
• Problems with discoverability and accessibility
(all of these affecting the research culture)
7. How can we find answers to problems and share
them faster?
How can researchers be rewarded for ‘good’
research work? (and poor practice disincentivized)
8. What’s wrong with the current system?
Academic research & researchers are judged almost entirely
on output in the form of journal articles.
9. What’s important in journal articles?
“Our experience has shown that a paper's impact is maximized if it
is as short as is consistent with providing a focused message, with a
few crucial figures or tables.”
“We all face the challenge of how to make the best use of our time
in an era of information overload. Judicious use of Supplementary
Information to ensure that the printed version of a paper is clear,
comprehensible and as short as is consistent with this goal, is very
likely to increase the paper's readership, impact and the number of
times others cite it.”
10. What’s important in journal articles?
“Our experience has shown that a paper's impact is maximized if it
is as short as is consistent with providing a focused message, with a
few crucial figures or tables.”
“We all face the challenge of how to make the best use of our time
in an era of information overload. Judicious use of Supplementary
Information to ensure that the printed version of a paper is clear,
comprehensible and as short as is consistent with this goal, is very
likely to increase the paper's readership, impact and the number of
times others cite it.”
11. What’s wrong with the current system?
Journals are trying to do two jobs at once:
12. What’s wrong with the current system?
Journals are trying to do two jobs at once:
• Disseminating useful findings to practitioners and researchers
13. What’s wrong with the current system?
Journals are trying to do two jobs at once:
• Disseminating useful findings to practitioners and researchers
• Being the primary research record: what has been done, by
whom, when and with what result, in full detail
14. What’s wrong with the current system?
Journals are trying to do two jobs at once:
• Disseminating useful findings to practitioners and researchers
• Being the primary research record: what has been done, by
whom, when and with what result, in full detail
These require two very different kinds of writing.
17. Primary research record:
Research (and researcher)
assessment
Journals:
Dissemination
of findings
Data Code Ideas
Links with specialist repositories:
18. A new ‘primary research record’
digital-first,
free to read; free to write,
with automatic language translation.
Not based around papers
but smaller publication units, in a new structure
24. • Instant publication
⇒instant ‘priority’ for you, as well as faster dissemination of knowledge generally
• Smaller author groups
⇒more meritocratic recognition, especially for specialists
(eg. technicians designing and publishing protocols; statisticians doing analyses)
⇒more accountability (it’s clear who’s doing what work)
25. • Instant publication
⇒instant ‘priority’ for you, as well as faster dissemination of knowledge generally
• Smaller author groups
⇒more meritocratic recognition, especially for specialists
(eg. technicians designing and publishing protocols; statisticians doing analyses)
⇒more accountability (it’s clear who’s doing what work)
• No need for ‘narrative’
⇒removes pressure for ‘questionable research practices’ (excluding data that
doesn’t fit a hypothesis) as ‘a story’ no longer important
⇒You can publish ‘just a hypothesis’ or a small data set etc.
(meaning more work will be shared, avoiding waste)
26. • Equal emphasis on all parts of the research process
⇒Allows detailed description of every part of the research process (e.g. methods,
analyses etc)
⇒Changes the emphasis of assessment – allowing research to be judged purely on the
quality of the work.
⇒ Avoids emphasis on ‘findings’ over other aspects of the process such as method
development or implementation, leading to reduction in bias in choice of topics (no
benefit choosing the ‘sexy’ topics)
⇒Support for and recognition of outputs of research other than narrative ‘papers’
(e.g. software, datasets etc)
27. • Post-publication peer review
⇒no hierarchical ‘editor’ system that can lead to publication bias
⇒encourages collaborative working
(you can reversion a publication in the light of reviews, and include reviewers as
authors on the new version)
⇒reviews are all open for others to read, giving readers various ‘expert perspectives’
on the work
28. • Post-publication peer review
⇒no hierarchical ‘editor’ system that can lead to publication bias
⇒encourages collaborative working
(you can reversion a publication in the light of reviews, and include reviewers as
authors on the new version)
⇒reviews are all open for others to read, giving readers various ‘expert perspectives’
on the work
• Reviews are a publication type equal to all others
⇒reviews and reviewing given the equal status they deserve
(i.e. good reviewers get credit for their work)
29. • Supporting research integrity
⇒A ‘red flag’ system allows readers to raise any serious concerns in a way that’s
transparent, and allows authors to resolve issues whilst readers are aware of
concerns.
30. • Changing the way we all approach research
⇥ Different people can specialize in different parts of the research process (e.g.
analysis, data collection) and publish that work independently
⇥ Resets how we think about research as a process and as a career – we’re all
completing pieces of a jigsaw to the best of our ability
⇥ We collaborate worldwide (and across time) with everyone else, not just with those
in our immediate contact groups.
31. What’s in it for researchers?
• Removes barriers to access, worldwide
• Instant ‘priority’ and easy to publish
• Easier to find relevant work
• More meritocratic
• Can easily publish all ideas, data etc.
32. What’s in it for researchers?
• Removes barriers to access, worldwide
• Instant ‘priority’ and easy to publish
• Easier to find relevant work
• More meritocratic
• Can easily publish all ideas, data etc.
What’s in it for journals?
• Become more focused on synthesizing,
editorializing and disseminating to
their audiences
• Can continue to charge subscriptions
knowing that the research is
freely available in Octopus
33. What’s in it for researchers?
• Removes barriers to access, worldwide
• Instant ‘priority’ and easy to publish
• Easier to find relevant work
• More meritocratic
• Can easily publish all ideas, data etc.
What’s in it for journals?
• Become more focused on synthesizing,
editorializing and disseminating to
their audiences
• Can continue to charge subscriptions
knowing that the research is
freely available in Octopus
What’s in it for funders?
• Can search well-rated publications and
offer funding for ‘the next bit of the
chain’ (potentially to multiple groups)
⇒Avoiding wasteful grant application
process
• Can easily assess individual researchers
34. What’s in it for researchers?
• Removes barriers to access, worldwide
• Instant ‘priority’ and easy to publish
• Easier to find relevant work
• More meritocratic
• Can easily publish all ideas, data etc.
What’s in it for journals?
• Become more focused on synthesizing,
editorializing and disseminating to
their audiences
• Can continue to charge subscriptions
knowing that the research is
freely available in Octopus
What’s in it for funders?
• Can search well-rated publications and
offer funding for ‘the next bit of the
chain’ (potentially to multiple groups)
⇒Avoiding wasteful grant application
process
• Can easily assess individual researchers
What’s in it for institutions?
• Can instantly assess what type of
researcher a candidate is
• Much better way to see what their
peers think of their work
35. Please try Octopus out
If you share our principles there are a few things you can do:
1) Go and have a look! Create yourself an Octopus log in. You might want to update
your details in ORCiD to make sure that your own author page shows everything you
want it to
2) Publish a Problem publication, linked to the most relevant seed data topic or
Problem that you can find. This could be taken from the introduction to a paper you’ve
published CC:BY already, or something that you’re currently working on.
3) Let us know if you come across any issues, and consider joining our user community
4) Spread the word: talk about Octopus at group meetings, journal clubs etc. We
can share slides with you if you like!
