Join a dynamic debate on the evolving landscape of peer review in scholarly publishing. This session brings together a commercial publisher (Sam Perkins, Executive Peer Review Manager at SAGE Publishing) and a researcher (Dr.ir. Frank van der Hoeven, Head of Research at the Faculty of Architecture at TU Delft and Program Manager Open Science) to discuss pressing questions about the responsibilities and rewards of peer reviewers, especially in the context of Open Access and Open Scholarly Communication.
What to expect
In this structured debate, editors and researchers will engage in a lively exchange on four key messages:
- Scientists should review articles that are relevant to their field, regardless of whether the articles are published OA or not.
- Scientists should review articles that are relevant to their field, regardless of the APC cost charged by the journal.
- Unlike researchers themselves, publishers are best placed to coordinate the review process (including finding reviewers before publication, coordinating comments, and implementing them before articles are published).
- Experts should always be paid for their work.
The format includes initial arguments, counterarguments and rebuttals from both sides, followed by an opportunity for the audience to vote on who made the most compelling arguments. The debate is moderated and audience interaction is encouraged through live polls.
Why participate
This debate offers a unique opportunity to hear different perspectives on critical issues in peer review. Whether you are a researcher, publisher, or simply interested in the future of scientific publishing, you will gain valuable insights into the challenges and potential solutions in this essential part of the scientific process. In addition, you will have the opportunity to voice your opinion and compare your views with those of your colleagues.
REGISTER to secure a free vegan lunch.
BRING A FRIENDand/or forward this page to anyone who might be interested in participating.
