Jon Tennant

cc @euatweets @YERUN_EU @marcschiltz1 @sciam @dborfitz @RobinLloyd99 @rdrimmel @daniel__barron @kakape @asilver360 @BBCTomFeilden @Eurodoc @BurgelmanJean

HUGE thanks to the amazing team behind this: @HarryDCrane @ProfTomCrick @jacintodavila @bubblbu_ @johave @MsPhelps Ryan Martin @pcmasuzzo @andy_nobes @curtrice @barb_rivera @tonyR_H @notimmuneatall @thackerpd and @MVanholsbeeck #TeamAwesome #TeamOpen

The purpose of this paper was to address 10 'hot topics' in the often vigorously debated world of scholarly communication. Very relevant with all the big changes happening around Plan S and #OpenScience

Topic 3: Does approval by peer review prove that you can trust a research paper, its data and the reported conclusions? Not entirely. Let us more effectively communicate how peer review really works, and the subjectivity often behind it. Let us be more honest about peer review.

Topic 4: Will the quality of the scientific literature suffer without journal-imposed peer review? This one is hotly debated. Peer review is clearly essential, but what forms are best remains to be explored. Lots to explore here in the future.

Topic 5: Is Open Access responsible for creating predatory publishers? Not entirely. They were around before OA too. However, the APC-driven form of OA, largely from commercial publishers, created a space to be exploited. It is a particular model of OA, not OA in itself.

Topic 6: Is copyright transfer required to publish and protect authors? In the modern world, there is little rationale for giving away copyright to third-party entities. Especially commercial publishers. Copyright needs to be returned to a function where it protects creators.

Topic 7: Does gold Open Access have to cost a lot of money for authors, and is it synonymous with the APC business model? It does not, and it is not. 'Green' and 'Diamond' OA routes are free for authors. However, some publishers do exploit this & the 'prestige game' for revenue.