F1000: Open for science Hollydawn Murray OpenCon Berlin: 25 November 2016 Hollydawn Murray Associate Editor, F1000Research and F1000 Platforms Hollydawn.Murray@f1000.com http://f1000research.com, http://wellcomeopenresearch.com [please customise this slide]

Traditional publishing is outdated @f1000research Traditional publishing is outdated Delays Concealed bias Waste Limited data

Months to publication Chemistry: 8.91 Biomedicine: 9.47 @f1000research Delays Months to publication Chemistry: 8.91 Biomedicine: 9.47 Business/Economics: 17.70 -- Source: https://helda.helsinki.fi/dhanken/bitstream/handle/10138/157324/Bj_rk_and_Solomon_2013_Informetrics_.pdf?sequence=6&isAllowed=y

Referee and editorial bias @f1000research Referee and editorial bias Status Gender Ideological differences Unconventional ideas Conflicts of interest Publication bias

If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market. @f1000research If peer review was a drug it would never be allowed onto the market. -- Drummond Rennie, deputy editor of the Journal Of the American Medical Association Source: Breast Cancer Research 2010 DOI: 10.1186/bcr2742 http://breast-cancer-research.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/bcr2742

Published research that cannot be fully interpreted or reproduced @f1000research waste Findings that are not published (negative and null results, small studies…) Published research that cannot be fully interpreted or reproduced Referee reports that are not accessible

waste Have you had a paper rejected because it was not ‘novel’ enough? Have you had difficulty repeating the methodology of a published paper? Have you failed peer review at 1 journal, and submitted to another? Have you ever gained valuable insight/knowledge from a referee?

waste If research was a transport business[…], half the goods carried would be badly designed, half lost in shipping, and half of the remainder broken by the time they arrived—a truly heart breaking waste. -- Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers, BMJ Blogs Source: http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2016/01/14/paul-glasziou-and-iain-chalmers-is-85-of-health-research-really-wasted/

The value of data REUSE Allows scientists to build upon previous work and advance the field Aggregation of datasets for metastudies REPRODUCIBILITY Makes it easier for others to reproduce the work Discourages researchers from falsifying results

The reproducibility crisis @f1000research The reproducibility crisis Methodological and statistical shortcomings vs Misconduct and fraud Tang et al. Transient acid treatment cannot induce neonatal somatic cells to become pluripotent stem cells. F1000Research 2014 Shinichi, A. Results of an attempt to reproduce the STAP phenomenon. F1000Research 2016 PRR Channel on F1000Research: http://f1000research.com/channels/PRR

-- ‘Data Sharing’, Longo and Drazen (NEJM) Source: New England Journal of Medicine 2016 DOI: 10.1056/NEJMe1516564 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMe1516564#t=article

Publishing is under revision @f1000research Publishing is under revision DELAYs Preprint servers (e.g. PeerJ PrePrints, BiorXiv) Saving peer reviewers time: journal cascade systems (e.g. Neuroscience Peer Review Consortium) Bias Increasing transparency: open peer review (e.g. BMJ, BMC series) Focus on scientific validity, not perceived interest (e.g. PLOS ONE) Improved decision making: referee/editor discussions to reach a consensus view (e.g. eLife, Frontiers journals) Waste, reproducibility, Data Separating peer review from journals (e.g. PubPeer, Peerage of Science) Post-publication commenting (e.g. PubMed Commons, Publons) Data journals (e.g. GigaScience, Scientific Data)

Disruptive publishing @f1000research Disruptive publishing (e.g. ScienceOpen, F1000Research, Wellcome Open Research) Speed Eliminates delays due to peer review Transparency Visible discussion between referees and authors allows readers to assess bias and quality of peer review; putting the article in context Studies suggest that open refereeing improves the quality of review Publish everything Reduces bias against unconventional ideas, null findings, etc. Open data Improves reproducibility

Who is in the best position to drive this change?

Community Establish a set of rules Publishers Provide services that meet community requirements Funders Approve those publishers meeting the requirements

open science platforms Open science publishing should be author-driven to enable researchers to share openly and rapidly any new findings that they think are worth sharing. Findings should be published near immediately, in a format most appropriate to convey the information in the discovery. In addition, publication should be usually followed by post publication, formal invited peer review, that is conducted transparently.  -- Vitek Tracz and Rebecca Lawrence, F1000Research Source: F1000Research 2016 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.7968.1 https://f1000research.com/articles/5-130/v1

Published 15 Nov 2016 1st referee report 21 Nov 2016 2nd referee report 22 Nov 2016

Is it possible that where a researcher publishes will become irrelevant?

@f1000research Thank you & good luck! Hollydawn.Murray@f1000.com