ORDER

Discussion panel

DISCUSSION PANEL ON ACADEMIC PUBLISHING
***PEER-REVIEWING FOR QUALITY AND VALUE***

11th of May
Duration: 3pm to 6pm
Speakers:
• Benjamin Rous, PhD, University of Amsterdam, Reviewer in ICAR
• Evangelia Kyriazi, PhD Researcher, University of Peloponnese, Reviewer in ICAR
• Jacek Martusewicz, Professor, PhD with habilitation, Academy of Fine Arts in Warsaw, President of the Scientific Council in ICAR
• Mirosław Wachowiak, PhD, University of Nicolaus Copernicus in Toruń, member of the Scientific Council in ICAR
Moderator: Anna Konopko, Academy of Fine Arts in Warsaw, Deputy Editor-in-Chief in ICAR

Aim of the panel is to:
• Familiarise students young conservators with the general topic of academic publishing,
• Explain in detail stages of publishing process,
• Present the topic from the point of view of editors and reviewers,
• Answer the audience’s questions about academic publishing that might not be clear for new authors.

Structure of the panel
I. Introduction
Panel begins with a presentation on publishing process in ICAR along with brief description of function of its consecutive stages. Some basic terms, such as ‘double-blind peer reviewing process’ will be explained. Aim of this presentation is to provide a framework for discussion and common terms/definitions.
Speaker – Anna Kowalik, MA, the Academy of Fine Arts in Warsaw, Editor-in-Chief in ICAR
II. PEER REVIEWING FOR QUALITY AND VALUE – main part of the panel
1. Peer-reviewing as foundation in academic publishing. Does this system work well in field of art conservation? How can it be tweaked to make it more impartial? Is double-blind peer reviewing protocol the ultimate solution? Is double-blind possible to achieve in the age of search engines, journal databases and social media?
2. Writing to adhere the criteria. Do criteria for assessment of papers make all authors follow the same scheme and therefore kill their individuality and creativity? Has writing papers on results of research become filling a template with data?
3. One paper, two contrary notes from reviewers. Why does it happen?
4. Do reviewers eventually shape the article? Is a review an instruction or list of suggestions?
5. We learn the most when we fail – what and how can we learn when our paper is rejected?
III. Q&A session