This blog article was written by Eva Amsen for F1000 who we interviewed earlier about the young journal, open peer review and publishing negative results. The paper currently in open peer review at F1000 research reports the failure to reproduce the STAP findings earlier this year – and may set an example for the importance for publishing ‘negative results’.
Well, seeing as you asked so nicely…
Here is a selection of audience and Twitter discussions before, during and after last week’s debate. There were hundreds of tweets which used the #prwdebate hashtag, so if you spot something we missed, let us know in the comments!
On the 3rd April PeerReviewWatch hosted a panel discussion at City University in London titled ‘Peer Review is broken. How can we fix it?’ In the audience were some members of F1000 Research, who participated actively in the discussion live and on Twitter. F1000 Research is an open access but importantly open peer-review journal – the most open of its kind today, says Eva Amsen, who is the outreach director of the journal here in London.
One day after the panel at City, I met her in a coffee shop near Goodge Street to talk about peer review.
Purposely, we left the panel discussion at City wide open for different aspects of peer review. Somehow the conversation came back to the topic of ‘open peer review‘ a couple of times. As F1000 Research is at the forefront of this development, I asked Eva to explain open peer review and the difference between doing it pre- or post-publication. (more…)
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) (more…)