Publishing and crediting different shaped research objects the way

0000-0001-6444-1436

@SCEdmunds

scott@gigasciencejournal.comScott Edmunds, #FORCE2015

1665-2015 style publication: problems• Article structure & journal policies (Ingelfinger, etc.) prevents

transparency, dissuades sharing of data & methods

• Lack of reproducibility is the norm. Ioannidis: “an estimated 85% of research resources are wasted”1

• “Industrial scale” ghostwriting of papers by Chinese companies & pharma, with ID theft & fake referees to guarantee JIF publication2-3

1. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1001747 2.http://www.grassley.senate.gov/sites/default/files/about/upload/Senator-Grassley-Report.pdf3. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/for-sale-your-name-here-in-a-prestigious-science-journal/

Data

Methods

Answer

Metadata

softwareAnalysis

(Pipelines)

Workflows/protocols

Idea

Study

Anatomy of a (Reproducible) Publication?

Data Publication

Software Publication

Workflow Publication

Virtual Machine Publication

Knitr Publication

Death to the Publication. Long live the Research Object!

Manifesto for a reproducible publisher:

The era of the 1665-style publication is over

Reward replication not advertising

We credit FAIR data, not JIF-bait narrative

Granularity ≠ salami slicing. Ingelfinger is the enemy

We need a recognizable score(s)/mark/badge for replication

Separate category in ORCID for actually usable things

?