Talk:Open Access
From Bioblast
Thoughts on publication strategies
- Can an open access journal use the wiki platform, with login limited to editors (and reviewers), to keep costs low and provide effective search options?
- How can the substantial labour be financed, if neither author fees (page charges) nor user fees (open access) add to be budget? - If nothing is charged, how can it be sold?
- A minimum submission fee may be charged, which may be waved in specific cases to maintain a fair access to submission of a publication.
- Suppport by conferences publishing their abstracts or proceedings in the open access journal.
- Page charges may be voluntary, and articles can be labelled as (a) voluntary page charges based on the availability of financial support (grants, institutional support, etc.) - all authors should be explicitely contacted asking for such support, particularly if grants are cited, (b) voluntary page charges considered as a donation, (c) minor contributions. The financial aspects must not be disclosed during the review process, to guarantee an unbiased review with respect to any payments.
- Company-supported articles with obligatory page charges.
- Support by a scientific society (MiPs ?). E.g. members of a society (MiPs) may receive login information and thus may increase the critical mass of scientists who contribute directly to discussions, compared to the indirect contributions via Email to the editors.
- Paid advertisements (companies) and announcements (conferences etc).
- General institutional financial support (?).
Evolution of an open access publication
- Some of these thoughts may not be practical and provide merely a basis for further brainstorming.
- The manuscript (MS) is put on-line as submitted (pdf for permanent track-record). The on-line access may be (a) open for all, or (b) open for the editors only (??).
- An alert is circulated to all editors and to selected reviewers, who should add their comments non-anonymously to the website, within a defined time frame (e.g. 1 month or 3 weeks). The editors and invited reviewers may modify their evaluation during the editorial period, and discuss evaluations of other editors/reviewers. Since all information is open-source, any conflict of interests are transparent (e.g. if an editor is an author). The authors get an immediate feedback from the on-line comments if access is 'open for all'.
- A specific editor (without conflict of interest) is nominated to summarize all comments, taking into account conflicts of interests (if editors are authors), and reach a first-level decision: Is the MS to be considered for (a) final publication, (b) revision, (c) rejection (pdf for permanent track-record). Authors may respond to rejections, and a different editor will reach a final evaluation.
- Upon request of the authors, a finally rejected MS is deleted. Alternatively, it may remain on-line as an 'unpublished MS', together with the editors comments and the rebuttal of the authors. This provides the chance of formally resubmitting an initially rejected MS with appropriate arguments.
- Final publications (PUB) are moved from the MS to the PUB category. (The MS category may be on a different website, or in a different category of the same website.)
- A PUB is subject to further evolution. (a) Supplementary materials may be added after publication (letter to the Editor, simple decision by the editor). (b) A PUB may evolve into a new version, which may be more useful and efficient than a βnewβ publication (editorial process?). (c) Readers like authors may submit their comments to the editor, who decides on adding these comments to the website.
- Even when trying the best in completion of a publication, there is generally scope for making it better.
- Fair citation is implemented by the possibility to add references newly discovered by the authors, or upon request by readers and communicated to the editor. As a reader-friendly approach, (a) main citations may be limited to a defined number (depending on article tye), and (b) an unlimited number of references may be added under 'additional references' - and this is open for comments.
Author information
- Provide information on the specific responsibilities of each co-author (this is standard in many journals).
- Follow transparent rules particulary for the two major positions of the first and senior authors.
- Define 'conflict of interest': For most (not all) scientists, a publication is written with the clear financial interests. These interests may be related to obtain a degree (was this publication part of a PhD or other thesis?), another grant, a new or better position. Is this then more or less biased compared to the conventional conflict of interest statements? This is so trivial and clear, that a general statement may not be necessary, such as "This publication supports financial and career interests of authors A, B, C, ...)".