APE 2019
Academic Publishing
in Europe Nr. 14
Platforms
or Pipelines?
Where is the Value in
Scholarly Communications?

APE 2019 Full Conference:
15-16 January 2019 Berlin

SSP Pre-Conference:
14 January 2019 Berlin

Program

PDF icon PDF Download

Venue: APE 2019 Full Conference > Leibniz Hall

Berlin Brandenburg Academy of Sciences and Humanities

Special Entrance: Gendarmenmarkt, Markgrafenstrasse 38, Berlin Mitte

Congratulations on a fantastic APE 2019. People will be talking about it for the rest of the year! I greatly enjoyed the meeting – and the wonderful dinner. The format is just right – it fosters discussion and comment both during the meeting and beyond!
I heard it was a tremendous success, and in fact some say it is the most important calendar date in the year for European publishers.

DAY ONE: Tuesday, 15 January 2019

Doors open
08:30 - 10:00

Please note: Special entrance Markgrafenstrasse 38 opposite Concert House:

Coffee, Tea & Breakfast Snacks

10:00 – 12:30

Greetings

  • Dr. Michiel Kolman, Presidential Envoy Diversity & Inclusion, Immediate Past President, International Publishers Association (IPA), Geneva

Welcome and Opening

  • Prof.Dr. Christian Thomsen, President, Technical University Berlin

Keynotes:

Plan S: Accelerating the Transition to full and immediate Open Access by 2020

  • Robert-Jan Smits, Special Envoy of the European Commission for Open Access and Innovation, European Political Strategy Centre (EPSC), European Commission, Brussels

For several decades, the science community has made the case that there should be Open Access to scientific publications.
In May 2016 Europe’s science ministers at the Competitiveness Council, called for open access policies at national and European level and agreed that there should be full open access to all scientific publications that are the result of publicly funded research by 2020.
There has been a lot of discussion and good intent between the various stakeholders to move towards Open Access, but the pace of transition is too slow to achieve the 2020 target.
For this reason, the European Commission decided to intervene in this policy area and President Juncker appointed Robert-Jan Smits as the Special Envoy for Open Access and Innovation in March 2018.
Working together with the national research funding organisations, the European Research Council and the European Commission, Plan S was developed to accelerate the transition to full and immediate open access by 2020.
Launched in September 2018, cOAlition S commits to implement, by 1 January 2020, the necessary measures to fulfil Plan S’s main principle:
“By 2020 scientific publications that result from research funded by public grants provided by participating national and European research councils and funding bodies, must be published in compliant Open Access Journals or on compliant Open Access Platforms."

A View from the United States: The Health of Science Funding and Scientific Publishing

  • Dr. Rush Holt, President of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), Washington, DC

The public funding of scientific research in the U.S. is dependent on annual appropriations by the U.S. Congress and thus is dependent on changes in leadership in the Administration and congressional representatives. This talk will review the current status of science funding in the U.S. since the 2016 Presidential election and the closely related status of scientific publishing. The evolving response of both federal agencies that fund research and publishers to the 2013 directive on public access to publications and data will also be reviewed.

Guided and grounded Transformation Strategies: Publishers as Researchers’ Advocates and Agents of sustainable scholarly Communications

  • Judy Verses, Executive Vice-President, Research, Wiley, Inc., New York

Breakneck changes are occurring across our markets—from the funding landscape, to researcher behavior, to the underlying business models and economics of the STM publishing industry. In times like these, organizations look to the future to inform their approaches, and the most successful organizations build their strategies around a clear North Star that guides their decisions. What’s often overlooked, though, in times of rapid change is the foundation on which to ground those efforts. In this talk, Judy Verses, Executive Vice President of Wiley’s Research business, will discuss the benefits of making the researcher the North Star and argue that, for academic publishers, that foundation should be the viability of research communication. Over nearly four centuries, scholarly publishers have protected the integrity of the scientific record and supported the systems of scholarly exchange, all in the service to researchers and the research community. This talk will propose approaches to building on that legacy, overview strategies for driving lasting change, reflect on the critical need for collaboration, and explore the power of rediscovering our primary purpose.

12:30 – 13:30

Lunch & Networking

13:30 – 15:00

Plenary Talk:

Where is the Value in Scholarly Communications?

  • Dr. Philippe MAB Terheggen, Managing Director, Journals, Elsevier, Amsterdam

The current value delivered by Scholarly Communications may be evident, or disputed, and in some areas hard to translate in euros, dollars or RMBs. The value stretches from editorial independence, to the governance of research quality and integrity, and much in between. Trust in journal brands and other provenance plays an important role here and much of this is delivered in co-creation with research communities. For the evident hotspots where this value is poorly delivered – go read the feedback to the few who don’t get it (also known as predatory publishers). Their unforgivable misdemeanor is their lack of feedback on research conduct and result analysis – and other outcomes from peer review and editorial oversight.
However where in the cycle of research and research information do we find value of Scholarly Communication that is incomplete, underdeveloped, under pressure or even completely untapped? Will value delivered be the same as value captured in the information ecosystem? I will cover some matters that may serve knowledge transfer and knowledge accumulation a little better. Ambition for better value via discoverability, individualization, and visualization for the future of research information. Finally, I will argue that more joint-up thinking is needed of potential scenarios for the ecosystem moving ahead.

Session 1:

Panel - A Journey through Platforms and Pipelines

  • Chair: Liz Marchant, Editorial Director, Life, Environmental & Earth Science Journals at Taylor & Francis, Oxford

A lot has happened in the last year or two in the world of scholarly publishing, it’s hard to keep pace. Traditional ways are being disrupted by new and old players, there is still strong desire to open up the research process and the definition of scholarly communication is more and more stretchy. Different people are operating parts of the pipeline, open platforms are emerging to replace closed pipelines, static platforms are becoming pipelines and siloes are being dismantled. In this session we take three different perspectives from those who need to ensure the journey through platforms or pipelines takes research dissemination to a better place rather than losing its way.

  • Clowns to the Left of Me... Jokers to the Right: The Independent Publisher in an Age of Mergers and Acquisitions
    Angela Cochran, Associate Publisher and Journals Director, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE), Reston, VA, and Author at the 'Scholarly Kitchen'

Scholarly publishing done right depends on a robust technological infrastructure that facilitates the curation and dissemination of scholarly works. Smaller not-for-profit and society publishers have traditionally had the same access to the infrastructure as larger commercial publishers. As technology needs grow in the industry, many commercial publishers have opted to buy instead of build the technology needed. As commercial publishers like Wiley or Elsevier buy the technology vendors used by all, it leaves smaller publishers vulnerable. Alternatives, mostly open source platforms built largely for the OA market, may be able to provide alternatives to society publishers that would prefer not to pay their competitors for access to technology platforms. That said, to date, those systems have not proven to be robust, scalable, or sustainable. This session will explore the challenges ahead for independent small publishers as more consolidation sweeps the market and what opportunities there may be for new entrants.

  • On Migrating from a traditional Platform to an innovative nonprofit Partnership
    Lauren Kane, Chief Strategy and Operating Officer, BioOne, Washington, DC

Whether for reasons technological, financial, or service-related, most publishers are not completely satisfied with their current platform vendor. But, switching costs are high and publishers are understandably reluctant to migrate across similar solutions. This was the challenge facing BioOne when we gave notice on our long-time contract with a commercial platform vendor in 2017. In lieu of a more traditional choice, we opted to partner with a large scholarly society in another discipline who had developed a proprietary platform for their own publications program. With this move, BioOne would reduce its operating costs and refresh its technology, but more importantly, be in a more flexible position to innovate for the future. This session will include a frank discussion of BioOne's opportunities and challenges in pursuing, brokering, and ultimately launching this unique partnership, as well as lessons learned that may help other publishers in similar positions.

  • Graduating from Platforms to Researcher-centric Pipelines
    Jonathan Hevenstone, SVP Business Development, Atypon, Hoboken

For three decades, Scholarly Communication has been brought to the web through publisher-branded websites that are typically hosted on specialized publishing platforms. While platforms have evolved over time, they still focus on the end deliverables of the research process, not the process itself. Atypon is now extending its services into pipeline tools in order to enhance the researcher workflow and help publishers maintain a relationship with researchers at every step of the research process. This presentation explores how we developed this concept and makes the case for why all such tools should be vendor-neutral, free or affordable to researchers, and support the critical role of publishers.

15:00 – 15:30

Coffee, Tea & Snacks

15:30 – 17:30

Session 2: Panel

Quo vadis, Science?

  • Chair: Dr. Ralf Schimmer, Director, Scientific Information Provision, Max Planck Digital Library, Munich

The scholarly publishing market is accelerating rapidly toward a fully open access paradigm, spurred on by multiple forces ranging from the habits and expectations of born-digital researchers, the maturity of early moving open access journals and publishers, the rise of open infrastructure publishing solutions, institutional open access policies, and now, the redoubled financial and political pressure of OA2020 and Plan S. Recognizing that the subscription system is out of its time, some publishers had the foresight—and means—to prepare for new business models and revenue streams by expanding their open access journal portfolio and diversifying into technology services that support the different phases of the research cycle and data analytics in an attempt to retain their market position. Yet to thrive, or even survive, in a market undergoing enormous transformation, players must be able to adapt to the new environment and embrace change. There is the opportunity for an orderly transition for those willing to work in partnership with their stakeholders and respond to the new market demands of consumers (RPOs) and producers (RFOs).

  • Where do we stand after the 14th Berlin Open Access Conference?
    Prof.Dr. Gerard Meijer, Director, Fritz Haber Institute of the Max Planck Society, Berlin

The 14th Berlin Open Access Conference was held just a few weeks ago as a summit meeting of high-level stakeholder delegations from 37 countries to discuss strategies to end the paywall system. In the closed-door meetings, it became immediately clear that there is a synergy between Plan S and the OA2020 initiative, but perhaps the most significant outcome of the conference was the strong alignment found among delegations and expressed in the final conference statement (https://oa2020.org/b14-conference/final-statement/), in particular, the commitment to “accelerating the progress of open access through transformative agreements that are temporary and transitional, with a shift to full open access within a very few years. These agreements should, at least initially, be cost-neutral, with the expectation that economic adjustments will follow as the markets transform”. While publishers may have already heard similar statements from national consortia in Europe, for the first time the message was delivered loud and clear by delegates from the US and China.

  • How to make a DEAL?
    Prof. Dr. Günter M. Ziegler, President of the Free University of Berlin

In line with the strategies outlined in the Berlin Open Access Conference, the DEAL negotiations are the practical example of the collective demand for transformative open access agreements. Most recently, this alliance uniting some 200 universities and research institutions in Germany in their stance against Elsevier was reinforced with the participation and full support of the Max Planck Society—one of the largest research institutions in the world. The scope of the project is one of maximum impact, targeting the three largest publishers—both in terms of publication output, but also, and to a disproportionate degree, in terms of subscription spending. From the perspective of German researchers, there is simply no valid business case for the subscription system to be perpetuated, and some publishers seem to be receiving the message, while others are not.

  • Open Access - or Open Science?
    Dr. Bernd Pulverer, Chief Editor, The EMBO Journal and Head of Scientific Publications, EMBO, Heidellberg

Recent Open Access (OA) initiatives by funders have led to a welcome re-evaluation of OA publication models. Few would argue against the goal of sharing scientific information without barriers. It is the implementation however that creates challenges. Funding and publication varies dramatically across disciplines, countries and institutions, and it is hard to implement ‘one-size-fits-all’ solutions. Currently, OA models are largely based on author fees, which adds transparency but poses an inherent tension with journal selectivity and quality control, and which risks replacing one access barrier (to readers) with another (to authors). At risk are not only selective journals, but also community institutions.
Many are working on the implementation of Open Science (OS) platforms, which require investment in infrastructure, research assessment policies and incentives to encourage adoption. As currently framed, the OA initiatives raise the question of whether their priority is to reduce publishing costs, or the overdue conversion to OS.
I will illustrate the potential benefits and limitations based on the journals published by EMBO, a not-for-profit community-based institution.
The title frames OA and OS as a choice but this is only the case under financial constraints. Instead, OA should be a first step to a more efficient and open research process based on a multi-layered, transparent mode of scientific exchange at every level of research – from primary data to interpretation, commentary and reuse.

  • Open Access: Perspectives from the European Chemical Society (EuChemS) and the Royal Society of Chemistry
    Dr. Robert Parker, CEO, Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge

The European Chemical Society (EuChemS) represents national Chemical Societies and other chemistry-related organisations in Europe. EuChemS supports the transition to Open Access, as access to research and dissemination of knowledge is a fundamental purpose of our values and aims. The Royal Society of Chemistry is a member of EuChemS and has set out to lead and shape Open Access publishing within the chemical sciences and to be an active partner in the transition to an Open Access world. The present, predominantly subscription system, represents challenges as it does not scale well with ever-increasing research outputs and keeps research behind an access paywall. However a transition will be complex and must support sustainable models that work globally and take into account different policy and market influences, enabling researchers to publish their work. Due to this EuChemS and the Royal Society of Chemistry believe that a pragmatic approach to the transition should be adopted, allowing community consultation and innovation within the market. We will share our observations and experiences as both as a supporter of the chemical sciences community and as a society publisher around researchers attitudes and behaviour towards Open Access publishing and the broader opportunities and challenges the transition may bring to learned societies.

Followed by a Panel Discussion. Keynote Speaker Mr. Robert-Jan Smits, Opern Access Envoy, European Commission will join.

17:30 – 18:00

The APE Lecture

  • 'Bridge over Troubled Water'. In the Spirit of Karen Hunter (1945-2018)
    Judith C. Russell, Dean of University Libraries, George A. Smathers Libraries, University of Florida, Gainsville, Fl

19:00 – 23:00

Conference Dinner in the ‘Refugium’

Please note: Only on invitation or with Ticket. Limited Seating!

DAY TWO: Wednesday, 16 January 2019

Doors open
08:30 – 09:30

Coffee, Tea & Breakfast Snacks

09:00 – 09:30

Session 3:

Good Morning China!

  • (Almost) everything you always wanted to know about China (but were afraid to ask)
    Ed Gerstner, VP Publishing, Nature Research Open Access, London

For researchers in China, publish or perish isn't just a harsh fact of life, it has become a way of life. And it doesn't just affect university academics. Chinese physicians — who typically see well over a hundred patients a day — are judged for promotion not on the the quality of their care they give, but on the number of papers they've published. PhD students in Shanghai and Beijing risk having their rights to live in these cities revoked unless they publish at least once in a journal listed in Clarivate's Science Citation Index. And the financial rewards for being published in Nature can exceed tens of thousands of dollars personally and many millions of dollars in grants professionally. At the same time, Xi Jinping has called for sweeping reforms and greater support for Chinese research journals. Yet researchers are often reluctant to publish in journals that publish large fractions of Chinese research. What on earth is going on?

Ed Gerstner has just returned from 6 years in China, where he helped to found Nature's first Chinese editorial office and was the Editorial Director for Springer Nature in China. He will reflect on his time in China, its meteoric rise, its contradictions and its future.

09:30 – 10:30

Session 4:

Where have all the Dotcoms gone? Plus new Start-ups

  • Chair: Drs. Eefke Smit, Director, Standards and Technology, The International Association of Scientific, Technical and Medical Publishers (STM), Amsterdam

Start-ups are all around, also in the STM sector and many believe they are the harbingers of innovation. Is this a justified assumption?
This year's dotcom session will include a near-comprehensive overview of what happened to dotcoms that saw the light in the past decade in our sector. After a surge in start-ups around 2010 - 2014, where have all those dot-coms gone? Some of them flew high very quickly, sometimes on the wings of a larger STM publisher, or were helped by powerful investors. Others achieved success in a more independent way. And some disappeared while still leaving their mark in the sector by sparking new apps or new platforms adopted by others.
The session will also zoom in on a handful of new start-ups and their ambitions for enhancing scholarly communication and research.

Speakers

  • What happened to the Dotcoms in our STM sector? First results of a retrospective overview: 2008 – 2018
    Yvonne Campfens, independent consultant, previously at Springer Nature, Swets, Elsevier

Yvonne Campfens will present the first results of her current Dotcoms Study, which comprises a retrospective near-comprehensive overview of 121 dotcoms. The outcome of this market research provides a review of the sheer existence and ownership structure of these dotcoms today, of the players who developed new solutions over the years. Next to factual analysis of topics like age and investors/owners, also trends and possible future scenarios are investigated. What can that teach us for new innovative initiatives on the horizon? And how to best partner with them?

Followed by presentations of new Dotcoms to watch:

  • AcademicLabs.co by Founder and CEO Arne Smolders
  • Filestage.io by CEO Niklas Dorn
  • SCI.ai by Roman Gurinovich, Systems Architect
  • Morressier by Sami Benchekroun, Co-Founder and CEO

10:30 – 11:00

Coffee, Tea & Snacks

11:00 – 12:30

Session 5:

Books - Paradigm Regained?

  • Chair: Ir. Wilma van Wezenbeek, Director, TU Delft and Program Manager Open Access (VSNU The Hague)

  • Going Agile, Going Open? Initiatives in North American Humanities Book Publishing
    Jason Colman, Director, Michigan Publishing Services, University of Michigan Library, Ann Arbor, MI

North American book publishing in the humanities, particularly in the mission-driven university press community, has long been under the pressure of slow but steady declines in sales revenue. Meanwhile, digital modes of scholarly research are becoming standard. In response, presses are launching significant efforts to innovate, both in business and access models and in technological solutions. Initiatives like Lever Press and Toward an Open Monograph Ecosystem (TOME) are attempting to provide a sustainable open access alternative to a library sales-driven business model. Meanwhile, community-based open source tools like Editoria, Fulcrum, and Manifold, supported by the Mellon Foundation, aim to supply presses with efficient and sustainable modes of production, discovery, and preservation of multimodal digital publications. This session will briefly outline these initiatives and their progress, and make a few suggestions for future directions.

  • Open Access Books - A Diamond in the Rough
    Dr. Anke Beck, CEO, IntechOpen, London“

A book is a book is a book – is a book a book?”. While the format in which research results are distributed should not matter to the academic community, it does to funders and policy makers. Anke Beck looks into funder policies of various stakeholders and leads us down to the deepest regions of where traditional concepts of the medium book, regulations surrounding books, and digital reality differ appreciably.

  • A Book is a Book is a Book?
    Prof.Dr. Wolfram Horstmann, University Librarian, State and University Library Göttingen

Just as scholarly journal publishing is evolving with new features such as interactive graphics, data supplements or micro publishing, book publishing is evolving with enhanced digital editions, hybrid printing models or ebooks allowing chapter renting. Yet, unlike journal publishing where digital possibilities have basically erased most requirements for print, books continue to persist in their original form -- be it as study material, literature or advanced print, but also in their perception as a cultural concept for knowledge transfer and research assessment. Three perspectives can shed more light on the current understandings of books. First, a closer look at library usage data reveal current use and interaction patterns. Second, research-led publishing and institutional publishers gain momentum, thus challenging established book publishing business models. Third, current humanities adopting deeply integrated digital research requires new forms of publishing to share their findings. These perspectives briefly illustrate that while digital-driven value chains in place seem to deconstruct the book as such, the book continues to be the book – in different forms.

12:30 – 13:30

Lunch & Networking

13:30 – 15:00

Session 6: Discovering, Sharing, and Accessing Content - Challenges and Solutions

  • Chair: Alice Meadows, Director of Communications, ORCID and Author at The Scholarly Kitchen

Why is it still so difficult for researchers to find -- and access -- the information they need, when they need it? How can we make it easier, and more desirable, for them to share their data? What do we need to do, individually and collectively, to ensure that the important research we support is disseminated and used -- effectively, efficiently, and equitably? These and other questions will be addressed in this session, which will include an update on the RA21 project to enable seamless access to content; an overview of the challenges and opportunities around data sharing; and a look at new tools for improving the discoverability of research content.

  • Rediscovering Research: Challenges in a changing Environment
    Dr. Daniel W. Hook CEO, Digital Science, London

The prevalence of data in research and the tools being developed to harness its power are rewriting the rules of research. The scale and types of project that we are able to entertain today could not have been imagined just a few years ago. The benefits of the increasingly data-driven approach to research are not limited to the hard sciences: The social sciences, arts and humanities all derive different benefits from the rise of data science and artificial intelligence to enhance how different topics are viewed and extended.
But, this new world of data-centric research is exposing flaws in our scholarly communication and dissemination model. The standard “atoms” of research communication - the paper and the monograph - are showing signs of their age. Research output is changing and research discovery mechanisms need to change to facilitate a broader range of ways to communicate research outcomes.
We take a brief look into the immediate future of research discovery and how this is influencing and influenced by fundamental shifts in the research landscape.

  • RA21. Resource Access in the 21st Century: Peek Preview into Solutions and Results
    Ralph Youngen, Co-Chair STM RA21 Taskforce and Director, Publishing Systems Integration, American Chemical Society (ACS), Columbus, Ohio

In 2016 RA21, the STM and NISO initiative, announced its intention to streamline the user experience for access to subscribed content outside institutional IP domains. The user experience with IP address recognition has become increasingly problematic as scholarly content is now widely consumed outside of the campus/corporate network or on mobile devices. Two years on, the RA21 team is ready to unveil the results of collaboration with libraries, industry associations, publishers, and standards organizations.

The report out will include updates and developments in four key areas including:

  1. Results from the Pilots
  2. User Experience (UX) overview
  3. Input and feedback from the RA21 Security and Privacy report
  4. Future Governance and next phase framework
  • Research Data: The approaching Horizon in Europe and beyond
    Grace Baynes, VP, Research Data & New Product Development, Open Research, Springer Nature, London

Research articles and books are important summaries and conclusions of years of work for researchers, but the data underlying them are the real building blocks and value of discovery. Open access to research data can help speed the pace of discovery and deliver more value for every funding euro by enabling reuse and reducing duplication. The European Commission has set out a clear vision for open data in the Horizon Europe proposal, mandating open access to research data as well as publications, with open science and open innovation two of the primary objectives. Globally more than 50 funders now require data sharing, with the majority based in the US and Europe, particularly the UK. Yet in Springer Nature’s Practical challenges for researchers in data sharing, a survey of more than 7000 researchers, we found self-reported levels of sharing below the global average of 63% by respondents in the UK (58%) and US (55%). In 2018 only about half of research data are shared, according to surveys of researchers, and a much smaller proportion are shared openly or in ways that maximise discoverability and reuse. While lack of time and expertise are commonly acknowledged as barriers, the issue for researchers may not be purely “lack of time” but “is it worth my time?”

Starting with the case for better data practice, this talk will explore recent developments worldwide in research data, with a particular focus on researcher attitudes and challenges, exploring survey findings in different subjects and geographies. Clear policy, coupled with better credit, explicit funding, practical help and answers to common questions are all essential factors in accelerating data sharing to an established norm. There are no easy answers, and no “silver bullet”, but there is much we can act on now.

15:00 – 16:30

Closing Panel:

Integrity, Ethics, and Peer Review: Who mediates the peer review conversation when we change the model?

  • Chair: Chris Graf, Director, Research Integrity and Publishing Ethics, Wiley, Oxford

Who mediates peer review now? Not so long ago, the traditional approach to quality in research publishing was pretty much all we had to offer research authors, and that was publisher-mediated peer review (or more properly: editor-mediated peer review). Now we have so much more. Author-mediated peer review is enabled by platforms, and authors themselves choose: They use automated (or semi-automated) processes to govern how their work is reviewed, and by whom. With the explosion of preprinting, we potentially have community-mediated peer review, when community members may offer comments on a preprint if they’re motivated to do that. So how do each of these models address the most important aspects of quality, namely ethics and integrity? We’ll bring you three experts, who will explore. Each expert will make short opening statements. And after that, it’s over to you, with live Q&A and conversation. So be ready with your questions (and answers). And let’s find out who mediates peer review now!

  • Publisher- and Editor-mediated Peer Review – Evolution of the traditional Approach
    Elisa De Ranieri, (as of January 1st) Editor-in-Chief, Nature Communications, London

Elisa De Ranieri will describe the evolution of peer review practices at the Nature-branded journal. She will refer to work with researchers to develop quality standards, and to apply these standards at journals using checklists. She will describe how full-time editors can deliver a high-quality peer review experience for researchers, and to ensure that integrity and ethics are addressed appropriately. Elisa will also address how transparency might enhance trust, but will also ask us: Might we find benefits from closed practices, like blinding peer review, while also delivering transparency?

  • Author-mediated Peer Review – the “Platform” approach, where authors choose their reviewers
    Dr. Diego Benedict Baptista, Open Research Coordinator, Wellcome Trust, London

Diego Baptista will describe the platform approach taken at Wellcome Open Research (WOR). He will explain what WOR does to support ethics and integrity via screening, moderation, and curation—especially with regard to how authors enhance the quality of (transparent) peer review reports by choosing their own referees. He will emphasize that peer review reports are an essential piece in the academic story and should be within the remit of what readers can access. Additionally, he will discuss how opening up peer review reports can add value, rigor, and excellence through post-publication evaluation from a wider research community.

  • Community-mediated Peer Review – the preprint model
    Dr. John R. Inglis, Executive Director of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Cold Spring Harbor, NY

John Inglis will describe how preprints fit into the research and research communication pipeline. He’ll share insights into how preprint servers screen, curate, and disseminate research before and (in some cases) after publishing, and their approach to integrity and ethics. He’ll describe how a preprint server can serve as a hub for community-led efforts to peer review preprints, and whether and how those efforts might become recognized. John will ask: How might community-mediated preprint peer review help streamline journal peer review?

16:30 –

ALMOST FINISHED: WAIT FOR THE SURPRISE!

End of APE 2019: Adjourn