@adredish @jonny @pluralistic

Only to note that desk rejections aren't cheap if one is following process, like reading the paper and asking for second opinions.

But I do see how charging for submission would benefit glamour journals. Diamond open access is what we all need, supported by our academic libraries – which they could totally do given the sums spent in journal subscriptions to begin with, were these to be redirected as they should.

#ScientificPublishing

@adredish @jonny @pluralistic

On paying for submissions: the system self-corrects because nobody would submit to a journal that then sat it out and did nothing with the submissions. Also, the volume is higher so the fee can be much lower.

On paying for acceptance: the journal has a huge conflict of interest, because lowering standards leads to more acceptance and more payments. Hence predatory journals.

#ScientificPublishing

@adredish @jonny @pluralistic

On my watch, if a manuscript is a bona fide attempt at rigorous scientific research and is within the scope of my expertise, I'll send it out for review.

Why shouldn't it? eLife aims at shepherding manuscripts through peer review, with the reviewers, reviewing editor and senior editor all being active, practising scientists, and all discussing with each other their own views on the work presented. So that's what I do. Something else is how vast the editorial board is, and how diverse: no unified view on how to exactly choose manuscripts to be sent out for review. But many share my approach, including the leadership.

What surprised me as editor is how few (about 1 in 3) of manuscript submissions meet the first condition. Why would anyone send a paper for publication that isn't a sensible addition to the edifice of knowledge is beyond me; I'd like to think it's because of publish-or-perish pressures from the bean counters that don't read the papers.

#ScientificPublishing

@adredish @jonny @pluralistic

I am not sure how is eLife a prestige journal, but it is surely a journal whose core mission is to upend scientific publishing, which is why I joined it first as reviewing editor and now as senior editor.

The publication cost per paper is indeed a problem*. My own take is if journals have to charge at all, then charges ought to be for submissions, not for acceptances, given that the former scales linearly with costs, whereas the latter doesn't.
https://albert.rierol.net/tell/20161008_Breaking_even_in_scientific_publishing.html

Worse, charging for acceptance creates a conflict of interest, as illustrated by the predatory journals that care only about such payments.
https://albert.rierol.net/tell/20210306_be_paid_for_publishing_scientific_papers.html

* eLife can waive publication costs when requested. But indeed such costs shouldn't exist, because all of them have already been paid by academic institutions: https://archive.blogs.harvard.edu/pamphlet/2012/03/06/an-efficient-journal/

#ScientificPublishing

@julian @DrEvanGowan @UlrikeHahn @encyclia

This reads super. What I've wanted to do for some time is follow journal editors, i.e., all manuscripts that they edit, that they pick for review and shepherd through peer review.

Maybe a variation or a parameterization of their ORCID stream would show this. At least @OpenAlex knows to show what I want, but does so mixed with the editor's own papers and other contributions.

#academia #ScientificPublishing