Now that the spirited debate about the comparative business models of Nature and PLoS has died down, it is nice to take a little break from it all, and then start a new round - this time about publishing models, not business, and what it means for the future of the scientific paper - how the peer-review, impact factors, researcher evaluation, etc. are changing. Of course I am biased, but I love what Cameron Neylon just posted on his blog: What I missed on my holiday or Why I like refereeing for PLoS ONE:
To me the truly radical thing about PLoS ONE is that is has redefined the nature of peer review and that people have bought into this model. The idea of dropping any assessment of 'importance' as a criterion for publication had very serious and very real risks for PLoS. It was entirely possible that the costs wouldn't be usefully reduced. It was more than possible that authors simply wouldn't submit to such a journal. PLoS ONE has successfully used a difference in its peer review process as the core of its appeal to its customers. The top tier journals have effectively done this for years at one end of the market. The success of PLoS ONE shows that it can be done in other market segments. What is more it suggests it can be done across existing market segments. That radical shift in the way scientific publishing works that we keep talking about? It's starting to happen.
Read the whole thing and let Cameron (and me) know what you think.
- Log in to post comments
I don't understand why you say you are biased!?!? Some time ago, you took a long hard look at publishing models, picked one over the other for rational reasons, and have been involved in that since. That is not being biased. That is being right. (Or wrong, as the case may be. But in this case, right.)
Just a disclaimer, I guess. I know I am right ;-)
At least in the biosciences, people were attracted to PLOS One for the very reason that there was a perception that papers could be manuscripts could be rammed into publication very rapidly. It is now achieving the reputation of actually being a very slow review-revise-publish process.
Part of this is that reviewers are slower with PLOS reviews than high-impact-factor journals. Because lets face it, if you have four manuscripts sitting on your desk waiting to be reviewed, and they are all due on the same day, you are gonna start going through them in descending order of the impact factor of the journals. And is actually one in which the exact same kinds of dumbass "please run this additional control" reviews are levied, forcing authors to do more experiments before publication.
reviewers are slower with PLOS reviews than high-impact-factor journals.
Evidence, please.
No that's not true. I have handled peer review for more than 45 manuscripts @ PLoS ONE and I can tell you the average turnaround time for the initial decision is about 20 days! The reason for this efficiency is PLoS ONE's editorial processes including the excellent and seamless electronic workflow support. There are set guidelines for the referees and if they evaluate manuscripts according to those points it becomes really simple and enjoyable business for them. As far as 'high impact' journals are concerned, I don't know what really constitutes a high 'impact factor' journal?