Downloaded 565 times
![Elsevier“Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of [Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine], a publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles—most of which presented data favorable to Merck products—that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.”“It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular journal. “The Scientist“In issue 2, for example, 9 of the 29 articles were about Vioxx, and 12 of the remaining were about another Merck drug, Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive conclusions, and some were bizarre: like a review article containing just 2 references. “Ben Goldacre, “Bad Science” The Guardian“It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures. This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place.”Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division](/image.pl?url=https%3a%2f%2fimage.slidesharecdn.com%2fwhatswrong4ss-090619091933-phpapp02%2f85%2fWhat-s-wrong-with-scholarly-publishing-today-II-27-320.jpg&f=jpg&w=240)
![Elsevier“Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of [Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine], a publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles—most of which presented data favorable to Merck products—that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.”“It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular journal. “The Scientist“In issue 2, for example, 9 of the 29 articles were about Vioxx, and 12 of the remaining were about another Merck drug, Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive conclusions, and some were bizarre: like a review article containing just 2 references. “Ben Goldacre, “Bad Science” The Guardian“It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures. This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place.”Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division](/image.pl?url=https%3a%2f%2fimage.slidesharecdn.com%2fwhatswrong4ss-090619091933-phpapp02%2f85%2fWhat-s-wrong-with-scholarly-publishing-today-II-28-320.jpg&f=jpg&w=240)
![Elsevier“Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of [Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine], a publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles—most of which presented data favorable to Merck products—that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.”“It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular journal. “The Scientist“In issue 2, for example, 9 of the 29 articles were about Vioxx, and 12 of the remaining were about another Merck drug, Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive conclusions, and some were bizarre: like a review article containing just 2 references. “Ben Goldacre, “Bad Science” The Guardian“It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures. This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place.”Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division](/image.pl?url=https%3a%2f%2fimage.slidesharecdn.com%2fwhatswrong4ss-090619091933-phpapp02%2f85%2fWhat-s-wrong-with-scholarly-publishing-today-II-29-320.jpg&f=jpg&w=240)
![Elsevier“Merck paid an undisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of [Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine], a publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles—most of which presented data favorable to Merck products—that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.”“It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular journal. “The Scientist“In issue 2, for example, 9 of the 29 articles were about Vioxx, and 12 of the remaining were about another Merck drug, Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive conclusions, and some were bizarre: like a review article containing just 2 references. “Ben Goldacre, “Bad Science” The Guardian“It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures. This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place.”Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division](/image.pl?url=https%3a%2f%2fimage.slidesharecdn.com%2fwhatswrong4ss-090619091933-phpapp02%2f85%2fWhat-s-wrong-with-scholarly-publishing-today-II-30-320.jpg&f=jpg&w=240)
Uploaded byBjörn Brembs
PPTX, PDF17,849 views
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
The document discusses the shortcomings of contemporary scholarly publishing, highlighting issues like access barriers, high subscription costs, and the overwhelming number of publications that hinder effective literature discovery. It criticizes the role of publishers, particularly Elsevier, in prioritizing profit over public access to scientific knowledge and advocates for open access as a solution. Additionally, it emphasizes the need for unique identifiers and improved metrics to facilitate better research visibility and collaboration.
More Related Content
Viewers also liked
Similar to What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
More from Björn Brembs
What's wrong with scholarly publishing today? II
- 1.Whatiswrongwithscholarlypublishingtoday?Björn Brembs, FreieUniversität Berlinhttp://brembs.nethttp://www.slideshare.net/brembs/whats-wrong-with-scholarly-publishing-today-ii
- 2.Publishing yesterday…1665:Onejournal: PhilosophicalTransactionsofthe Royal Society of London (Henry Oldenburg)
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
- 6.
- 7.10-15 millionreadersat >10,000institutions
- 8.1.5 billiondownloads/yearSource: MabeMA (2009): Scholarly Publishing. European Review 17(1): 3-22
- 9.
- 10.FunctionalityAt least fourdifferent searchtoolstobesure not to miss any relevant literature?
- 11.FunctionalityWhen we finallyfind the literature, we have to ask friends with rich libraries to send it to us?
- 12.FunctionalityWe have tore-format our manuscripts every time an ex-scientist tells us to submit to another journal?
- 13.FunctionalityWe have tore-format our manuscripts every time an ex-scientist tells us to submit to another journal?
- 14.FunctionalityEvery homepage hashad an access counter since 1993 but we don’t know how often our paper has been downloaded?
- 15.FunctionalityNothing happens whenwe click on the reference after "we performed the experiments as described previously"?
- 16.HyperlinksNothing happens whenwe click on the reference after "we performed the experiments as described previously"?First demonstration: 1968WWW: 1989Stanford Research Institute: NLSTim Berners-Lee: CERN
- 17.
- 18.
- 19.We, thescientists!We decidehow and where to publish
- 20.We, thescientists!We areproducers and consumers in personal union
- 21.We, thescientists!We choseto outsource scientific communication to publishers
- 22.PublishersA publicgood inprivate hands
- 23.ElsevierName from Dutchpublisher (1580): “House of Elzevir”250,000 articles per year in 2000 journals7,000 journal editors, 70,000 editorial board members and 300,000 reviewers are working for ElsevierPart of Reed Elsevier group
- 24.
- 25.
- 27.Elsevier“Merck paid anundisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of [Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine], a publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles—most of which presented data favorable to Merck products—that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.”“It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular journal. “The Scientist“In issue 2, for example, 9 of the 29 articles were about Vioxx, and 12 of the remaining were about another Merck drug, Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive conclusions, and some were bizarre: like a review article containing just 2 references. “Ben Goldacre, “Bad Science” The Guardian“It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures. This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place.”Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division
- 28.Elsevier“Merck paid anundisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of [Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine], a publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles—most of which presented data favorable to Merck products—that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.”“It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular journal. “The Scientist“In issue 2, for example, 9 of the 29 articles were about Vioxx, and 12 of the remaining were about another Merck drug, Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive conclusions, and some were bizarre: like a review article containing just 2 references. “Ben Goldacre, “Bad Science” The Guardian“It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures. This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place.”Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division
- 29.Elsevier“Merck paid anundisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of [Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine], a publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles—most of which presented data favorable to Merck products—that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.”“It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular journal. “The Scientist“In issue 2, for example, 9 of the 29 articles were about Vioxx, and 12 of the remaining were about another Merck drug, Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive conclusions, and some were bizarre: like a review article containing just 2 references. “Ben Goldacre, “Bad Science” The Guardian“It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures. This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place.”Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division
- 30.Elsevier“Merck paid anundisclosed sum to Elsevier to produce several volumes of [Australasian Journal of Bone and Joint Medicine], a publication that had the look of a peer-reviewed medical journal, but contained only reprinted or summarized articles—most of which presented data favorable to Merck products—that appeared to act solely as marketing tools with no disclosure of company sponsorship.”“It was a stealth marketing campaign to Australian doctors under the guise of a regular journal. “The Scientist“In issue 2, for example, 9 of the 29 articles were about Vioxx, and 12 of the remaining were about another Merck drug, Fosamax. All of these articles presented positive conclusions, and some were bizarre: like a review article containing just 2 references. “Ben Goldacre, “Bad Science” The Guardian“It has recently come to my attention that from 2000 to 2005, our Australia office published a series of sponsored article compilation publications, on behalf of pharmaceutical clients, that were made to look like journals and lacked the proper disclosures. This was an unacceptable practice, and we regret that it took place.”Michael Hansen, CEO Of Elsevier's Health Sciences Division
- 31.The Big Three(2009/10)(includes Springer)Source:http://www.publishersweekly.com/binary-data/ARTICLE_ATTACHMENT/file/000/000/127-1.pdf
- 32.
- 33.Journals Crisis (notjust Elsevier!)% ChangeModifiedfrom ARL: http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstats06.pdf, http://www.arl.org/bm~doc/arlstat08.pdf
- 34.Subscription PricingKIT Library10Most expensive journal subscriptions 2010/11http://www.bibliothek.kit.edu/cms/teuerste-zeitschriften.php
- 35.Subscription PricingSOURCE:LJ PERIODICALSPRICE SURVEY 2010
- 36.Subscription PricingMPG:18 Mio€/y forliterature. 95% tothethreemainpublishers.UK:94.6 Mio £/y in subscription (2003/4)
- 37.What a magnificentship! What makes it go?Cartoon by Rowland B. Wilson
- 38.Library responsesRequest increasedbudgetsCut subscriptionsCollective purchase of electronic journalsRely on document delivery or ILLUC: boycott NPG!Ray English
- 39.
- 40.Survey: Journal AccessDavidNicholas
- 41.
- 42.Scholarship as aPublic Good Funded by Taxpayers
- 43.Scholarship as aPublic Good Supported publicly
- 44.Scholarship as aPublic Good Created in the non-profit sector
- 45.Scholarship as aPublic Good No profit for article authors
- 46.Scholarship as aPublic Good Profit for corporate publishers
- 47.ScholarshipA Public Goodin Private Hands
- 48.
- 49.
- 50.Onesolution: Open Access“Open-access(OA) literature is digital, online, free of charge, and free of most copyright and licensing restrictions.” Peter Suber
- 51.Open AccessGold OAPublishingin an Open Access journalCurrently 6722peer-reviewed open access journals listed in the Lund Directory of Open Access Journals doaj.org Green OASelf-archiving in an institutional repository or PubMed CentralOver 1400 open repositories already established world-wide
- 52.
- 53.But: Everything’s GoneDigital! www.scopus.comwww.pubmed.govhttp://ukpmc.ac.ukisiknowledge.comscholar.google.comDuncan Hull
- 54.Welcome to DigitalIsolationdifferent disciplines – different information silos
- 55.Welcome to DigitalImpersonal and unsociable“who the hell are you”?Where are “my” papers?What are my friends and colleagues reading?What are the experts reading?What is popular this week / month / year?
- 56.Welcome to DigitalObsolete models of publicationNot everything fits publication-sized holesMicro-attributionMega-attributionDigital contributions (databases, software, wikis/blogs?)
- 57.Welcome to DigitalColdIdentity of publications and authors is inadequate
- 58.Open AccessIdentity CrisisHowcanI find anything?
- 59.Identity Crisis: Whichpublication?http://pubmed.gov/18974831http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18974831http://ukpmc.ac.uk/articlerender.cgi?accid=pmcA2568856http://ukpmc.ac.uk/picrender.cgi?artid=1687256&blobtype=pdfhttp://www.ploscompbiol.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pcbi.1000204http://www.dbkgroup.org/Papers/hull_defrost_ploscb08.pdfhttp://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000204One paper, many URIs. Disambiguation algorithms rely on getting metadata for eachBig problem for libraries is these redundant duplicatesMatching can be done by Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and PubMed ID (PMID); these are frequently absent < 5% (Kevin Emamy, citeUlike)Duncan Hull
- 60.
- 61.
- 62.
- 63.Onesolution: Unique identifiersDifficultwith fragmented information silos
- 64.Onesolution: Unique identifiersSeveralinitiatives
- 65.Onesolution: Unique identifiersExamples:PubMedID, DOI, ORCID, Semantic Web
- 66.
- 67.Semantic WebMachine-readablemeaningTechnically non-trivialPromisingprogressTim Berners-Leehttp://www.w3.org/2000/Talks/1206-xml2k-tbl/Overview.html
- 68.The Semantic Webfor Dummies (like me)URIUniform Resource Identifier, like:http://id.archeology.edu/weapon/spear+XMLCustomized tags, like:<spear>Lance</spear>+RDFRelations, in triples, like: (Lance) (is_spear_of) (Longinus)+OntologiesHierarchies of concepts, likeweapon -> projectile -> spear-> Lance+Inference rulesLike:If (person) (owns) (spear), then (person) (throws) (spear)=Semantic Web!
- 69.Digital dystopiaInformation (Overload)CrisisOr filter failure?
- 70.
- 71.Information Crisis1.5 millionpublicationsper year in 24,000 journals
- 72.Information CrisisFinding ‘my’publications is impossible!
- 73.
- 74.Information Crisis60-300 applicantsper tenure-trackposition
- 75.
- 76.
- 77.Onesolution: JournalRankSource NormalizedImpact per PaperThomson Reuters: Impact FactorEigenfactor (now Thomson Reuters)ScImago JournalRank (SJR)Scopus: SNIP, SJR
- 78.
- 79.
- 80.Job applicationinstructionsPublikationstätigkeit(vollständige Publikationsliste,darunter Originalarbeiten als Erstautor/in, Seniorautor/in, Impact-Punkte insgesamt und in den letzten 5 Jahren, darunter jeweils gesondert ausgewiesen als Erst- und Seniorautor/in, persönlicher Scientific Citations Index (SCI, h-Index nach Web of Science) über alle Arbeiten)Publications:Completelistofpublications, including original researchpapersasfirstauthor, seniorauthor, impactpoints total and in the last 5 years, withmarkedfirstand last-authorships, personal Scientific Citations Index (SCI, h-Index accordingto Web of Science) for all publications.
- 81.MetricsLies, damn liesandbibliometrics
- 82.Show of hands:Whoknows what the IF is?Who uses the IF to pick a journal (rate a candidate, etc.)?Who knows how the IF is calculated and from what data?
- 83.The Impact FactorIntroducedin 1960’s by Eugene Garfield: ISIcitationsarticles2008 and 20092010IF=5Articles published in 08/09 were cited an average of 5 times in 10.
- 84.The Impact FactorJournalX IF 2010=All citationsfromTR indexedjournalsin 2010 topapers in journal XNumberofcitablearticlespublished in journal X in 2008/9€30,000-130,000/yearsubscriptionratesCovers ~11,500 journals (Scopuscovers ~16,500)
- 85.Main Problems withtheIFNegotiableIrreproducibleMathematicallyunsound
- 86.NegotiablePLoSMedicine, IF 2-11(8.4)(The PLoS Medicine Editors (2006) The Impact Factor Game. PLoS Med 3(6): e291. http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0030291)CurrentBiology IF from 7 to 11 in 2003BoughtbyCell Press (Elsevier) in 2001…
- 88.Not ReproducibleRockefeller UniversityPress boughttheirdatafrom Thomson ReutersUpto 19% deviationfrompublishedrecordsSecond dataset still not correctRossner M, van Epps H, Hill E (2007): Show me the data. The Journal of Cell Biology, Vol. 179, No. 6, 1091-1092 http://jcb.rupress.org/cgi/content/full/179/6/1091
- 89.Not MathematicallySoundLeft-skeweddistributionsWeakcorrelationof individualarticlecitation rate withjournal IFSeglen PO (1997): Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research. BMJ 1997;314(7079):497 (15 February)http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/314/7079/497
- 90.Lord Kelvin“Nearly allthe grandest discoveries of science have been but the rewards of accurate measurement”
- 91.
- 92.Message:Where you publishis more important to us than what you publish!
- 93.
- 94.Other solution: socialbookmarksrefworks.comzotero.orgmendeley.comhubmed.org2collab.comconnotea.orgciteulike.orgRe-couple metadata that has be de-coupled from datawww.mekentosj.com“iTunes for PDF files”
- 95.Article-level MetricsYour article:ReceivedX citations (de-duped from Google Scholar, Scopus, and Web of Science)It was viewed X times, placing it in the top Y% of all articles in this journal/communityIt received X CommentsIt was bookmarked X times in Social Bookmarking sitesExperts in your community rated it as X, Y, ZIt was discussed on X ‘respected’ blogs It appeared in X, Y, Z International News mediaPeter Binfield
- 99.PLoS ONE4.5 yearsoldAlmost doubling in volume each year2007: 1,231 articles2008: 2,722 articles2009: 4,310 articles2010: 6,784 articles2011: >12,000 articlesLargest journal in the worldOver 1,000 Academic editorsMore than 30,000 authorsFully peer reviewed but the review / acceptance process does not concern itself with ‘impact’, ‘novelty’ (or other subjective measures)