2. Currently issues facing research in the
sciences
Peer review
Data curation
Publication
▪ Journal, open-source journal, institutional repository,
pre-print repository
3. Briefly—don’t want to bore you with this,
that’s what the final project is for
Where we Where we Where we
were are want to be
4. Peer review grants authority to knowledge
Verifies that all aspects of research are sound
Where we
were
5. We have seen the challenges of integrating
new products of scientific research
Datasets
Code
Blogs
Wiki contributions
We need to unify these things anyways
Applying a new peer review process to these things
could unify them + improve their usability
6. Points out how broken it is:
One study found reviewers missing most
important errors—no way to resolve that in an
opaque system
There is a large inequity in the trade off between
journal profit and faculty notoriety
7. Peer review strained by the volume and type
of knowledge we are feeding to it
Where we
are
8. Solutions to old peer review (slow, opaque) lie
in harnessing social networks
Challenges to doing so:
Redefining academic traditions to validate new
forms of interaction
Upkeep of an open source tool needs to be as
rewarding as publishing in Nature
9. Revamped peer review solves problem of
traditional peer review AND…
Problems of organization
Data linkage
Best practices
Where we
want to be
10. Faculty of 1000 and myExperiment are
admirable models for the future of
bioinformatics-class peer review
Neither one is the killer app
11. Flexible, collaborative development of
knowledge
Has established rewards to encourage
contribution
13. What good is data that can only be used by a
select few?
It will be very important to visualize this data
in order to make it accessible to an audience
