Subscribe to our newsletter
A SpotOn Day to Celebrate Peer Review #SpotOn16
Last Saturday, on a cold a crisp morning, SpotOn 2016 asked – what might peer review look like in 2030? With this theme in mind, scientists, policymakers, technologists and publishers came together to take part in a day packed full of fun, thoughtful and diverse sessions and workshops. SpotOn London brings together all three SpotOn strands – policy, outreach and tools – in a single day event. Our hashtags were buzzing from the moment #SpotOnPoetry kicked off! Thanks to zeeba.tv we were able to live stream this year’s event.
https://twitter.com/SpotOnLondon/status/794833208634441728
Our guests were not sent to #SpotOnPoetry empty handed – they were each given a goody bag with ballots to cast their votes in each session and biology themed stuffed toys – fun and learning!
Very strong breakfast and goody bag game at #SpotOn16 pic.twitter.com/jKwc6zr7wt
— Sam Illingworth (@samillingworth) November 5, 2016
https://twitter.com/SpotOnLondon/status/794868525320073216
Dan Simpson and Sam Illingworth started SpotOn with a bang! Their confidence on stage and their repertoire of the works of scientific poets entertained and educated. Sam and Dan asked whether science could be a poetic way of describing the universe or is it cold and uncaring? The latter was proved to be false!
Starting with peer reviewed poetry by @samillingworth & @dansimpsonpoet. Read Sam's article on the topic https://t.co/xaEAmFGdKi #SpotOn16 pic.twitter.com/6F92695MhS
— F1000Research (@F1000Research) November 5, 2016
After #SpotOnPoetry came #SpotOnHistory, spearheaded by Dr Noah Moxham, a historian from St Andrews University who gave a fascinating talk about the history of peer review. It was astonishing to learn that the concept of peer review took a long time to catch on and was even dismissed by scientists such as Einstein.
Watson & Crick seminal paper wasn't ever peer reviewed – published due to letter from Bragg endorsing it. Welcome to 1950s folks. #SpotOn16
— Dan Shanahan (@danrshan) November 5, 2016
During the panel debate to discuss ethical issues around peer review, it was clear that researchers were frustrated with the culture of publish or perish; equally as obvious was the desire for publishers to have a transparent and efficient review process.
We were lucky enough to have two rooms at our disposal at the Wellcome Collection for this year’s SpotOn and we certainly made good use of them! #SpotOnCreative was held in the Burroughs room and we had a wonderful set of speakers giving quick presentations about new forms of technologies that are speeding up and revolutionising the peer review process. Below, you can find the full debate filmed by audience members!
#academic #publishing“Rather than trying to get everyone to use the same system make these systems more connected.” @DrHammersley #spoton16
— Jojo Scoble 🔬 (@JojoScoble) November 5, 2016
By the end of the morning, our hashtag had attracted so much attention we started to trend. Considering we were up against bonfire night – that was pretty impressive!
We're trending… 💪✊🤓#SpotOn16 @SpotOnLondon pic.twitter.com/HUWsXHTV3W
— Jojo Scoble 🔬 (@JojoScoble) November 5, 2016
Many people who attended and presented at SpotOn16 were technology professionals, therefore it was only fitting to have one of our speakers, Ivan Oransky, co-founder of Retraction Watch, join us online via a webcam.
Rarely if ever see an audience as engaged with a remote presentation as #spoton16 crowd r 4 @ivanoransky of @RetractionWatch – great stuff!
— Tony Ross-Hellauer (@tonyR_H) November 5, 2016
Ivan Oransky of @RetractionWatch will be live for questions after his prerecorded video at #SpotOn16 #SpotOnRW pic.twitter.com/jJi0tAbhtp
— BMC (@BioMedCentral) November 5, 2016
Ivan provided some staggering statistics that evoked a strong response from the audience.
Retractions have risen 10-fold between 2000 & 2010, with 2/3s due to plagiarism and misconduct – @ivanoransky #SpotOn16 pic.twitter.com/MfM05ttOTm
— Dan Shanahan (@danrshan) November 5, 2016
Only one person in the top-30 scientists with most retractions list is a woman. That speaks volumes.. #SpotOn16 @ivanoransky
— Jon Tennant (@Protohedgehog) November 5, 2016
After Ivan finished a detailed live Q&A with our audience, we took a lunch break and got prepared for another panel discussion focused on preprints to celebrate the 25th anniversary of arXiv – the first preprint server for scientific papers worldwide. Our panelists answered complex questions about the legacy of arXiv and also about transparency in the movement of data from its origin to eventual publication.
Heard this before. Preprints provide priority, peer review provides "validation". https://t.co/Ixvvk47VOg #SpotonPP #SpotOn16
— Dr Stuart RF King (@StuartRFKing) November 5, 2016
In today’s world, artificial intelligence (AI) is no longer the stuff of science fiction writers, it is very much a significant part of developing technology. Robotics usually come to mind when we think of AI, but can it be used for peer review? Perhaps, more importantly – should it? The room couldn’t quite agree.
The room think AI in publishing certainly on the cards by 2030. As to whether this is a good idea or not, things are more divided #spotonai
— Patrick Walter (@PatDWalter) November 5, 2016
https://twitter.com/G_ruber/status/794912319339954180
SF author @John_Gibley introduces #SpotOnAI, asks if AI in #peerreview will happen by 2030? Most agree. Desirable? More disagree #SpotOn16
— Matt Hodgkinson (@mattjhodgkinson) November 5, 2016
"Top" journals no better at reducing risk of bias (in animal work, MacLeod, PLOS Biol) – can robots do better asks @SDawsonBerlin #SpotOnAI pic.twitter.com/6xkR7Rp1lC
— Matt Hodgkinson (@mattjhodgkinson) November 5, 2016
To finish off a wonderful day, we had a session called #SpotOnTraining where we attempted to discuss solutions to help train and even rate peer reviewers and also debated the need for an incentive for people to review in the first place. There was certainly some friction when we asked if you can actually train someone to peer review papers well – many thought expertise in a subject trumps all.
Technical expertise is the main skill that a peer reviewer needs, but it's not the only one. That's where training can help #SpotOnTraining
— Dr Stuart RF King (@StuartRFKing) November 5, 2016
https://twitter.com/sharmanedit/status/794937271535435776
.@danrshan skeptical about rating reviewers. Those who pick good papers good, papers good if picked by good ref? #SpotOnTraining #SpotOn16
— Matt Hodgkinson (@mattjhodgkinson) November 5, 2016
Throughout the day we had a talented scribe working away in the auditorium corner creating an illustrated summary of the SpotOn’s most valuable lessons! What an outstanding job he did!
Amazing live doodling at the @SpotOnLondon by @Live_Scriber #SpotOn16 pic.twitter.com/wvahiqE63i
— Dr Elodie Chabrol (@EloScicomm) November 5, 2016
An excellent summary of the conference! #SpotOn16 pic.twitter.com/jjpYlhDZlc
— Marios Karouzos (@CosmicMarios) November 5, 2016
Just before the thanks to all involved were given, Jenna Shapiro’s SpotOn poetry competition’s winning poem was read aloud by Sam Illington, and she won a £50 Amazon gift voucher – well done Jenna!
https://twitter.com/SpotOnLondon/status/795562276283629568
Bye bye @SpotOnLondon! Thanks for a thought-provoking day. #SpotOn16
— Dr Stuart RF King (@StuartRFKing) November 5, 2016
Organising an event of this size can’t be done alone – BioMed Central played a pivotal role in running SpotOn16.