Plenary Discussion: We are Open! Are You? – How Can I Open My Research?

The first morning of the Summer School ended with a plenary discussion about the issues raised in the previous talks. One topic of discussion was whether open peer review is a useful practice. Both advantages and disadvantages were voiced: while people agreed that it can make the process more transparent, some were concerned about reviews not being as honest because there can be a certain pressure if people know who wrote a review, especially with prestigious senior researchers. Furthermore, the participants discussed, if the most prestigious journals also publish the best research and if research is assessed more on the bases of the journal of publication, or the actual «body of work». In both cases, the consensus was that it highly depends on the field and culture of the discipline.

The last big discussion of the morning resolved around the topic of how Open Science can become the new normal. Important factors that were mentioned to this regard were that people need training in these issues, incentives should be institutionalized, and that the movement both needs bottom-up, as well as top-down support and initiatives.