Talk:Open Access

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.

1. 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 (??).
2. 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'.
3. 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.
4. 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.
5. 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.)
6. 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 ‘new’ 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, ...)".