It’s publishing but not as you know it: How Open is Changing Everything
•Télécharger en tant que PPTX, PDF•
0 j'aime•147 vues
This is a talk given as part of Open Access Week 2021 (#OAWeek2021) at Flinders University. Abstract: Despite the seismic shifts of the last couple of decades with the introduction of the internet, scholarly publishing has remained basically unchanged. The Mertonian norms were established in 1942 when science was ‘under attack’, and today science is once more being questioned. It is time to return to our base principles. The open agenda offers a path not only to reproducibility and increased trust in research, but also addresses questions related to research culture, allowing a more diverse and inclusive environment.
Recommandé
Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Similaire à It’s publishing but not as you know it: How Open is Changing Everything
Similaire à It’s publishing but not as you know it: How Open is Changing Everything (20)
Plus de Danny Kingsley
Plus de Danny Kingsley (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
It’s publishing but not as you know it: How Open is Changing Everything
- 1. It’s publishing but not as you know it: How Open is Changing Everything Dr Danny Kingsley Associate Librarian (Content & Digital Library Strategy) OA Week 2021 talk 27 October 2021
- 3. The plan • The societal problem • The academic sector problem • The open solution • Australia’s progress • …. In less than 30 minutes!
- 4. Normative Structure of Science Robert K Merton, “The Normative Structure of Science”, 1942 essay in The Sociology of Science edited by Norman W Storer, published 1973 http://www.collier.sts.vt.edu/5424/pdfs/merton_1973.pdf “Incipient and actual attacks upon the integrity of science have led scientists to recognize their dependence on particular types of social structure. Manifestos and pronouncements by associations of scientists are devoted to the relations of science and society. An institution under attack must re- examine its foundations, restate its objectives, seek out its rationale. Crisis invites self-appraisal. Now that they have been confronted with challenges to their way of life, scientists have been jarred into a state of acute self-consciousness: consciousness of self as an integral element of society with corresponding obligations and interests.”
- 5. Experts? (2018) https://www.ft.com/content/3be49734-29cb-11e6-83e4- abc22d5d108c https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/26/opinion/pruitt-attack-science- epa.html “Scott Pruitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, has announced that he alone will decide what is and isn’t acceptable science for the agency to use when developing policies that affect your health and the environment.” (Mr Pruitt is a lawyer.)
- 6. This really didn’t help https://www.nature.com/articles/d415 86-020-01695-w https://www.the-scientist.com/features/the- surgisphere-scandal-what-went-wrong--67955 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PII S0140-6736(20)31324-6/fulltext
- 9. We have to be above criticism • “Incipient and actual attacks upon the integrity of science have led scientists to recognize their dependence on particular types of social structure. Manifestos and pronouncements by associations of scientists are devoted to the relations of science and society. An institution under attack must re-examine its foundations, restate its objectives, seek out its rationale. Crisis invites self-appraisal. Now that they have been confronted with challenges to their way of life, scientists have been jarred into a state of acute self-consciousness: consciousness of self as an integral element of society with corresponding obligations and interests.”
- 10. Visionary – and it still holds • The four Mertonian norms of science (1942) • universalism: scientific validity is independent of the sociopolitical status/personal attributes of its participants • communalism: all scientists should have common ownership of scientific goods (intellectual property), to promote collective collaboration; secrecy is the opposite of this norm. • disinterestedness: scientific institutions act for the benefit of a common scientific enterprise, rather than for the personal gain of individuals within them • organized scepticism: scientific claims should be exposed to critical scrutiny before being accepted: both in methodology and institutional codes of conduct.
- 12. How did we get here? Data gathering Analysis Writing Publishing Dissemination Reuse Assessment The primary measure of success in academia is publication of novel results in high impact journals
- 13. The incentive system is causing problems Image: Flickr Jason Taellious reward – CC-BY-SA 2.0
- 14. Problem: Hyperauthorship http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.114.191803 24 of the 33 pages of this paper listed the over 5,000 authors (nine pages are the paper itself)
- 16. Problem: Poor Science http://rsos.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/royopensci/3/9/160384.full.pdf
- 17. Problem: Risk averse research • Scientists we interview routinely say that they dare not propose bold projects for funding in part because of expectations that they will produce a steady stream of papers in journals with high impact scores. • Our analysis of 15 years' worth of citation data suggests that common bibliometric measures relying on short-term windows undervalue risky research • Research today is driven by last year’s publications. • Scientists write to influence reviewers and editors in the process. … They use strategic citation practices. • The greater the novelty of the work the greater likelihood it is to have a negative review … Scientists understand the novelty bias so they downplay the new elements to the old elements. Reviewers are blinkered by bibliometrics : Nature News & Comment. 26 April 2017 http://www.nature.com/news/reviewers-are- blinkered-by-bibliometrics-1.21877 Professor James Evans, 2015 Researcher to Reader conference https://unlockingresearch.blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=539
- 18. Problem: Attrition crisis? Hard work, little reward: Nature readers reveal working hours and research challenges, Nature News, 4 November 2016, http://www.nature.com/news/hard-work-little-reward- nature-readers-reveal-working-hours-and-research-challenges-1.20933
- 20. Ranking is more profitable than publishing https://www.ft.com/content/21da8a6b-d5e9-473a-86e0-056c489d55bf
- 21. What do rankings measure? Specifically, publication in Science or Nature Nobel Prizes & Field Medals (awarded to research ‘stars’) Papers indexed in a system focused on Nth America journals & research published in English
- 22. Cause and Effect? http://www.shanghairanking.com/ARWU- Methodology-2019.html https://www.science.org/content/article/cash- bonuses-peer-reviewed-papers-go-global Let’s not get too smug – it’s happening here too. https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/264473
- 23. Or we could use sticks? https://campusmorningmail.com.au/news/murdoch-us-great-expectations-for-researchers/ http://www.nteu.org.au/article/Academic-Career-Framework-Change-Management-NTEU- Concerns-21645 Union response:
- 24. Problem: concentrated market Vertical integration resulting from Elsevier’s acquisitions, from Alejandro Posada and George Chen, (2017) Rent Seeking and Financialization strategies of the Academic Publishing Industry - Publishers are increasingly in control of scholarly infrastructure and why we should care- A Case Study of Elsevier http://knowledgegap.org/index.php/sub-projects/rent-seeking-and-financialization-of-the-academic-publishing- industry/preliminary-findings/ https://www.publishersweekly.com/pw/by- topic/industry-news/industry- deals/article/87120-clarivate-purchase-of- proquest-extended.html
- 25. Is the is outcome we are looking for? https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/open-access-deals-shift-scholars-towards-bigpublishers Since these deals, the proportion of chemistry papers from Germany-based authors appearing in the publishers’ journals shot up by more than 5 percentage points to over a third. If this change left just two or three mega-publishers controlling the market, said Professor Haucap, these giants would have “tremendous market power to squeeze money out of libraries and science organisations” in future open access deals
- 26. If these are (some of) the problems: • Hyperauthorship • Gaming peer review • Poor science • Risk adverse research • Attrition of research talent pool What is the solution? • Focus on narrow successes • Publishing in a limited market • Obsession with rankings • Reduced negotiation capacity • Focus on ‘stars’ rather than collaboration
- 27. The solution: Open Research Data gathering Analysis Writing Publishing Dissemination Reuse Assessment Data gathering Analysis Writing Publishing Dissemination Reuse Assessment Distribute dissemination across the research lifecycle and reward it From this: To this:
- 28. Open Access is only part of the Open solution https://www.mysciencework.com/omniscience/open-science-open-access-far-apart
- 29. Making your work open access
- 30. Openness is different in different disciplines Comic by XKCD - https://xkcd.com/435/
- 31. This requires complex big thinking This runs across multiple areas of the university that might not normally work together. https://t.co/PVwr33o3YX?amp=1
- 32. Research Culture is a big focus https://royalsociety.org/topics- policy/projects/research-culture/ https://wellcome.org/what-we-do/our- work/research-culture https://www.nwo.nl/en/position-paper- room-everyones-talent
- 33. Six years ago, the UK was only starting • “We can’t tell our researchers what to do” • “On what $%^&ing legal basis are they telling me I have to share my data?” • “Are you saying we have to back-up our laptops?” • “But XX university is unique, it’s not like other universities” • “This is $%^&ing bull$*#@!”
- 34. And look at it now https://osc.cam.ac.uk/open-research/open- research-position-statement http://www.exeter.ac.uk/research/openresearch/about/explai ned/ https://www.reading.ac.uk/research/re search-environment/open- research.aspx https://wellcomeopenresearch.org/
- 35. So where is Australia up to on this?
- 37. But ’open’ is increasingly on the Australian agenda https://campusmorningmail.com.au/news/chief- scientist-gets-the-nod-on-open-access/ https://www.fair-access.net.au/fair-statement https://www.science.org.au/supporting- science/science-policy-and- analysis/reports-and- publications/advancing-data-intensive- research-australia
- 38. ARC hit international news – for the wrong reasons https://campusmorningmail.com.au /news/arcs-preprint-misstep-over- decra-grant-applications/ https://www.theguardian.com/educ ation/2021/aug/20/devastating- career-event-scientists-caught-out- by-change-to-australian-research- council-fine-print https://www.nature.com/articl es/d41586-021-02318-8 https://www.chemistryworld.com/news/a ustralian-research-councils-ban-on- preprints-in-grants-prompts- outcry/4014271.article https://www.timeshighereducation.com/news/heartbreak- research-careers-ruined-australian-rule-tweak
- 39. But mistakes help open discussions 20 August https://twitter.com/MissEmilieLib/ status/1428521731962990595 23 August https://campusmorningmail.com.au/ne ws/arcs-preprint-misstep-over-decra- grant-applications/ CMM article quoted this Tweet: 25 October https://www.natureindex.com/news- blog/blurred-line-responsibility-between-research- offices-libraries Combination leads to this article:
- 40. (Some) pushback on rankings
- 41. Assessment conversations are starting here https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_ id=3772437 https://oaaustralasia.org/events/oa-week-2021/
- 43. Further reading & information Keynote - "Is the tail wagging the dog? Perversity in academic rewards” COASP 2017, 9th Conference on Open Access Scholarly Publishing held in Lisbon, Portugal on 20-21 September 2017 • Slides - https://www.repository.cam.ac.uk/handle/1810/267263 • Video - http://coaspvideos.org/2016/videos/play/1401 https://unlockingresearch-blog.lib.cam.ac.uk/?p=713
- 44. Thank you! Dr Danny Kingsley danny.kingsley@flinders.edu.au @dannykay68
Notes de l'éditeur
- Worse in some areas than others Replication crisis in psychology and biomedical science Sociology, economics, climate science also vulnerable [according to Smaldino] Poor research design and data analysis encourage false-positive findings. Such poor methods persist despite perennial calls for improvement, suggesting that they result from something more than just misunderstanding. The persistence of poor methods results partly from incentives that favour them, leading to the natural selection of bad science. This dynamic requires no conscious strategizing—no deliberate cheating nor loafing— by scientists, only that publication is a principal factor for career advancement. Some normative methods of analysis have almost certainly been selected to further publication instead of discovery. In order to improve the culture of science, a shift must be made away from correcting misunderstandings and towards rewarding understanding. We support this argument with empirical evidence and computational modelling. We first present a 60-year meta-analysis of statistical power in the behavioural sciences and show that power has not improved despite repeated demonstrations of the necessity of increasing power. To demonstrate the logical consequences of structural incentives, we then present a dynamic model of scientific communities in which competing laboratories investigate novel or previously published hypotheses using culturally transmitted research methods. As in the real world, successful labs produce more ‘progeny,’ such that their methods are more often copied and their students are more likely to start labs of their own. Selection for high output leads to poorer methods and increasingly high false discovery rates. We additionally show that replication slows but does not stop the process of methodological deterioration. Improving the quality of research requires change at the institutional level.
- When researchers were asked how the challenges in research have influenced their careers, 65% said they had considered quitting research, and 15% that they had actually quit. Around one-third felt that they had been judged solely on the number of papers they had published, and another one-third said that they had published a paper they were not proud of. And 16% said they had cut corners in research. (Readers could choose more than one answer.) When asked to choose the biggest challenge facing early-career scientists, 44% of some 12,000 respondents overwhelmingly picked ‘the fight for funding’. This result aligns closely with the answers of the 3,000-plus people who responded to Nature’s 2016 salary survey, just under half of whom ranked ‘competition for funding’ as the biggest challenge to their career progression. The next biggest challenges identified in the reader poll, ‘lack of work–life balance’ and ‘progression judged too heavily on publication record’ received just under one-fifth of the total vote each.
- Slide from Danny’s talk https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1g9eD8uANMAMTDDy0zhlytiL7MKxbYrZ6QwUBOg2Yzr8/edit?usp=sharing Video of the presentation https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1NY_FZ44VvtYU2rYuRhPPeSHSfhpGlZ4k The bit on rankings starts at 4.35 - 12.35 Then it goes on to "be careful what you wish for" which might be the situation we are in, in relation to the Chief Scientist at the moment.