Welcome from EASE President, Pippa Smart
9.10am BST Plenary 1
The realities of being an editor in a time of crisis, lessons learned and recommendations for the future.
In this session two editors involved in health journals and public health information will share their experiences of the past few months. They will describe the tensions that they experienced and how they dealt with the increasing workload; how they managed the balance between speed and quality control and how they dealt with remote working, quality control, and meeting the demands of colleagues.
Moderator: Pippa Smart, EASE President
Co-moderator: Duncan Nicholas, EASE Vice-President
Speaker: Naomi Lee, Senior Executive Editor (Research) at The Lancet
Ines Steffens, Editor-in-chief of the scientific journal Eurosurveillance
10:15am BST- Plenary 2
This debate proposes: “”It is acceptable to reduce quality assurance processes in order to fast-track important research in times of crisis”
We assume that quality is vital to ensure the validity of science, but ensuring quality takes time – which can stifle science and delay cures. This debate proposes that if there is a pressing need to fast-track publication then it is acceptable to modify quality assurance processes. The proposal will be championed by one debater, and then challenged by the other, and will then be open for questions and challenges from the audience. There will be two votes to see what participants think before and after the debate to see if either speaker has changed your opinions. We look forward to a lively session!
Moderator: Joan Marsh (The Lancet)
Proponent: Hervé Maisonneuve (Medical writer)
Opponent: Ana Marušić (University of Split)
11:15am BST- Break-out sessions
EASE Forum Live!
This session will comprise separate meeting rooms, each assigned a topic for discussion. Each room will have a moderator to coordinate the discussion. A maximum of 20 people will attend each session, and pre-registration is required.
See the event page for more details HERE
12:15pm BST- Plenary 3
Preprints and independent peer review services in crisis times
In the past studies and articles about a crisis started to appear after it was over, but this year many articles appeared online during the COVID-19 Pandemic. This is largely due to preprint and independent peer review services. During this session we explore the cons and pros of such services during a crisis time.
Bahar Mehmani, moderator
Duncan Nicholas, co-moderator
Jessica Polka, AsapBio
Janne Seppanen, Peerage of Science
Monica Granados, PREreview
Mario Malicki, METRICS
Closing remarks, Duncan Nicholas, EASE Vice-President
Conference close at 1:30pm BST