On March 15th the University of Cambridge held a panel discussion as part of their science festival: In science we trust – Traditional publihsing, open access, post-publication review. Panelists were:
- Andrew Sugden, editor at Science
- Eva Amsen, outreach director at the F1000Research
- Mark Patterson, executive director at eLife
- Ruth Wilson, Publisher at Nature Scientific Data
- Nikolaus Kriegeskorte, Principal investigator at the MRC-CBU (Cambridge)
All panelists had to address three questions:
Why some topics are more fashionable than others? What is the place of the so-called negative results in science publishing? What should be considered first: the Impact Factor of the journal in which a paper is published or the number of citations for this paper?
A summary in tweets:
First on stage: Mark Patterson, excutive director from eLife.
Everyone agreed: Some topics are more fashionable than others. Solid research should be published independent of fashion. F1000 says here we are!
Eva Amsen from F1000 Research.
What should be considered first: the Impact Factor of the journal in which a paper is published or the number of citations for this paper?
Andrew Sudgen, editor at Science …
… Ruth Wilson from Nature agrees with all of Andrew Sudgen’s points and adds…
Last but not least, Nikolaus Kriegeskorte, principal investigator in Cognition and Brain Science at MRC:
Agreement on importance of publishing the non-fashionable and so-called negative result studies. Nature and Science support it should be published somewhere. F1000 said, submit to us.
Different opinions on: What should be considered first: the Impact Factor of the journal in which a paper is published or the number of citations for this paper? Non of them. Impact factor is appalling and should be removed. All agreed. Sudgen proposed longevity of a paper as alternative. Some disagree. Pre- and Post-publication peer review were big topics of discussion. Open Questions: Who should be involved in pre-publication peer review? Can it be anonymous? Where should post-publication peer review take place, the journal pages, private blogs? How many reviewers are enough? What are the alternatives to the impact factor?