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