1. F1000: Open for science Hollydawn Murray
OpenCon Berlin: 25 November 2016
Hollydawn Murray
Associate Editor, F1000Research and F1000 Platforms
[please customise this slide]

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 Traditional publishing is outdated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Traditional publishing is outdated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

4. 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:

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

6. 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:  /bcr2742

7. 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

8. 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?

9. 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:

10. 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

11. 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:

12. -- ‘Data Sharing’, Longo and Drazen (NEJM)
Source: New England Journal of Medicine 2016 DOI:  /NEJMe

13. 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)

14. 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

16. Who is in the best position to drive this change?

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

18. 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:  /f1000research

24. Published Nov 2016
1st referee report 21 Nov 2016
2nd referee report 22 Nov 2016

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

26. @f1000research
Thank you & good luck!