Live Blogging a Panel Discussion: In Science we trust. Do we?

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:

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:

Summary:

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?

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s