Traditional publishing models require that individuals or institutions pay publishing houses for access to peer-reviewed scientific journals. This business model has recently come under scrutiny by proponents of Open Access, where authors pay to publish in peer-reviewed journals and content is subsequently free to the user. Open Access activists argue that the activities of traditional publishing houses, specifically the services they provide to the scientific community, do not justify the magnitude of revenues obtained. Furthermore, Open Access proponents oppose the traditional business model on moral grounds, claiming it is wrong to withhold access to research that could potentially improve or save lives. Established publishers, on the other hand, argue that there are real costs to them in providing high-quality publications and services, and that they support the principle of access for all but sustainable approaches are needed to provide this access so that high-quality publications continue to be sustainable. Recently, several leading academics have spoken out, even staging a boycott of selected publishers. Open Access continues to be hotly debated within the scientific community, in the media, and by the wider public. The aim of this debate is to critically examine the available publishing models and to explore the potential impact of Open Access on the future of scientific publishing.

Confirmed panelists:

Rhodri Jackson, Senior Publisher, Oxford University Press

Angelika Lex, Vice President Academic and Government Relations, Elsevier

Damian Pattinson, Executive Editor, PLoS ONE

Erik Merkel-Sobotta, Executive Vice President Corporate Communications, Springer Science+Business Media

Caroline Sutton, President, Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association (OASPA)

Martin Rasmussen, Managing Director, Copernicus.org

Chair:

Edvard Glücksman, Science Communications Fellow, European Geosciences Union