1. Miles Lincoln LIS590BIL

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

12.  Centralizes scientific knowledge and
collaborators
 Promotes reuse, interdisciplinary
collaboration

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

16.  Linked knowledge
 Baseline required centralized identifiers
 Transparency and flexibility
 Collaborative

17. Disagree?
Join the conversation:
peerpressurebil.wordpress.com