Wednesday, 20 June 2018, 9:30 at the Central Library Building

„Make peer review transparent again”, a joint workshop by OpenUP and FOSTER in Göttingen.

The joined training event of OpenUP and FOSTER in Göttingen focuses on the changing discourse of peer review, the strengthening presence of open peer review in scholarly publishing, and the emerging methods and tools in support of open scholarship.  The workshop wishes to provide young researchers with information about the methods and tools of open scholarship, open peer review in particular, and how they strengthen core principles of research integrity. It also plans to engage a wider research community in a dialogue about open peer review and some of the major aspects of the transforming scholarly publishing system (demand for greater transparency, erosion of incentives, lack of training).

You can still register.

Agenda

  • 9:30-9:50, Welcome session (coffee)
  • 9:50-10:00, Introduction to the workshop
  • 10:00-10:30, Presentations on FOSTER and OpenUP
  • 10:30-12:00, Small group exercises and discussion (Session 1)
  • 12:00-12:30, Lunch
  • 12:30-13:00, Presentation by Felix Schönbrodt
  • 13:00-14:30, Small group exercise and discussion (Session 2)
  • 14:45-15:45, Panel discussion
  • 15:45-16:00, Wrap up

Presenters and invited guests

Edit Görögh, OpenUP
Helene Brinken, FOSTER
Felix Schönbrodt, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München
 

Panelists:

Felix Schönbrodt, LMU München
Xenia van Edig, Copernicus Publications
Solveig Lena Hansen, Department of Medical Ethics and History of Medicine, Medical Center, Göttingen University
Vinodh Ilangovan, Department of Genes and Behavior, Max Planck Institute
Piroska Lendvai, Campus Labor DCA, Göttingen University

Topics of discussion

Session 1

In the first session we will interactively develop an understanding of the benefits and potential drawbacks of open peer review (OPR). We will discuss advantages and disadvantages from the perspectives of key stakeholders. Focusing on researchers again, we will identify gaps to be bridged and develop actions to be implemented in order to move towards more transparency. Elements of discussion include (1) traditional peer review & attributes of open peer review, (2) different perspectives on advantages and disadvantages of openness, and (3) practical implementation of OPR: requirements, actions, best practices & examples. The session will engage participants in small group exercises to gather information and viewpoints on the different degrees on openness in the review process.

Session 2

The second session will focus on some of the problematic aspects of the scholarly review process. The goal here will be to discuss the challenges the participants might have encountered, gather possible solutions for these problems and collect best practices and good examples how these aspects of the review process have been managed in different disciplines.  Issues for discussion include (1) increasing reliability and incentives (how higher visibility can contribute to better reviews and more active participation in the review process), (2) encouraging data sharing and data availability (how access to data improve the review process), and (3) training for reviewers (how training young researchers incentivize participation).

Panel discussion

The panel discussion builds on Session 2 and the conclusions of the small group exercise. The goal of the discussion is to interrelate the three topics and examine them in various disciplinary context. Best practices and challenges of data sharing and transparent review and research practices will help to outline the direction the open science movement take in different fields of study.