From: tracey depellegrin connelly <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Tue, 19 Feb 2013 23:41:47 -0500

Good post Joe, and good discussion by others as well.

The Genetics Society of America (GSA) publishes two journals, each
with a different business model. GENETICS, which published its first
paper in 1916, ihas a traditional subscription model, has author page
charges, and an author's choice OA model, and early online within a
week after acceptance. All content is free after one year, including
its archives dating to 1916. Our newest journal, G3:
Genes|Genomes|Genetics, is fully open access, with a Creative Commons
Attribution license, supported by author page charges only.

I wanted to address the abstract error you pointed out (in your
original post). I take your example, though I wonder if we're asking
the right questions. What more is lost in the trade-off between costs
and quality?

While some assert that Gold OA, by its nature (or perhaps by the
nature of the drive for profit), demands lower costs and lower
editorial standards – that is not necessarily the case with G3. We
believe we owe our authors more than just a DOI.

I believe, yes, that the error you mentioned could have been caught at
several levels: by a diligent reviewer, an associate or senior editor
handling the paper, or a copy-editor. In fact, G3 articles are typeset
and copy-edited to the same high standard as the articles in GENETICS.
Our journals include a great deal of math and statistics, and demand
precise, pristine, thorough copy-editing. We simply do not, and will
not, sacrifice quality for lower costs. In the longer-term, we (and
our authors) believe our process adds real value.

Finally, I don't agree that Gold OA requires lower editorial
standards. Like GENETICS (and many scientific society journals), G3
has an editor-in-chief, a board of senior editors, and an 78-member
editorial board, all of whom are working scientists, many with busy
day jobs as PIs and senior researchers or department chairs. Still,
all decisions on manuscripts are made by an Associate or a Senior
Editor. It is those decisions in our editorial process – which we call
peer-editing – that we believe separates the wheat from the chaff.
While most of our reviewers write thoughtful, complete, helpful
reviews, in the end, it is up to the Associate Editor to read the
manuscript, read the reviews, decide which of the reviewer suggestions
the authors must take into account, and write the decison letter, and
offer guidance to the authors.

G3 may not be an OA megajournal, but we are trying to strike a balance
between fiscal sustainability, scholarship, quality, editorial
standards, and, like GENETICS, a desire for long-term impact in the
scientific community rather than a quick, shorter-term gain.

Not trying to plug G3, per se, but to put forward our editorial
processes, which places peer-editing and quality on the same level as
the need for a healthy bottom line in our Gold OA model. Stay tuned.

Best,
tracey


Tracey DePellegrin Connelly
Executive Editor
GSA Journals
[log in to unmask]
phone 412.760.5391
twitter: tracey depellegrin @tracey423
Genetics Society of America
Bethesda MD  20814-3998


On 2/17/13 8:55 AM, "LIBLICENSE" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

From: Joseph Esposito <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sun, 17 Feb 2013 05:21:55 -0600

I have been sitting in a conference this weekend in which one of the
principal topics has been the future of peer review.  So it was with
surprise and consternation that I happened to see the abstract to an
article in PLoS ONE:

http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0056178

The article covers a study of how people read ebooks.  And there, in
the very first sentence of the abstract, is a simple factual error.
The abstract states that ebooks outsell print books in the U.S. and
UK.  Not true.  Ebooks outsell print at Amazon, but the book biz is
far bigger then Amazon, three to five times bigger, depending on who's
counting.

Is this a problem of peer review? A problem of insufficient
copy-editing?  A copy editor would have fact-checked that item, but
copy-editing is one of those things that is being cut back or even
eliminated to reduce costs for Gold OA services.  The problem is
structural:  Gold OA requires lower costs because the burden of paying
for the work rests with the producer instead of being spread across
all the readers.

Gold OA, in other words, structurally requires lower editorial
standards.  Much of the time we may not care about that, but then you
stumble on one simple error and begin to reflect on the entire
enterprise.

Joe Esposito