Preprints, open access, and the end of Ingelfinger: Issues at the nexus of publishing and science journalism today

Preprints, open access, and the end of Ingelfinger: Issues at the nexus of publishing and science journalism today

James_Fraser
Subhra_Priyadarsini
Randy_Schekman
27 October 2017
12:00 pm – 1:30 pm
  • Marriott Marquis

Preprints, open access, and the end of Ingelfinger: Issues at the nexus of publishing and science journalism today

Moderator: Ivan Oransky

A luncheon event organized by eLife, with support from additional sponsors

Registration required.

This hosted luncheon event will explore how changes in science publishing are affecting how research is conducted, shared and vetted, and discuss the challenges and opportunities that today’s increasingly open publishing environment presents for science journalism and science communication. A panel presentation will be followed by open discussion.

The luncheon is presented by Randy Schekman, editor-in-chief of eLife, with generous support from four convening sponsors – eLife, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Annual Reviews and F1000 – and additional sponsor PLOS (the Public Library of Science). Registration is required.

Scientists have pushed for changes to make it easier to share findings with their colleagues, potential collaborators, and the public at large. In response, publishers are adapting their ways.  

Open-access publishing, where anyone can access research for free online as soon as it’s published, is required by an increasing number of research funders and is becoming the norm. Moves away from the Ingelfinger rule encourage discussion and collaboration ahead of publication. Meanwhile, preprints – suddenly and prominently taking the stage in biology – enable results to be shared even before peer review. 

Such moves toward open sharing raise new questions about how science is communicated in the media. Freed from the Ingelfinger rule, when should scientists speak to the media about their findings and when should they wait? Should journalists report research before peer review? Should scientists ever be discouraged from discussing their work? Do journal press embargo policies inhibit or support progress?

Journalists have expressed their own concerns related to science publishing. Access to regional and international literature has led many scientists, particularly in developing countries, to use sites such as Sci-Hub to download papers. Journalists also experience problems with access to research findings. Journalists and scientists alike have expressed concerns about the effect of impact factors on the practice of science, what resources are available to help journalists determine the quality and significance of a paper, embargo issues in general and how to handle information release in the case of a preprint.

These and other issues will be explored by scientists, science publishers, and journalists together in this special event at the World Conference of Science Journalists. What are the issues scientists face, why are such changes to publishing good for science, what are the risks, and what further changes may be on the horizon? 

The event will also be a chance to debate whether science communicators and reporters should change their own practices and ask different questions as they traverse the altered landscape.