[GOAL] Re: Gold OA: Publication costs and journal impact factors

[Steve Hitchcock]

Apparently rejection is good, so long as it isn't terminal, presumably
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/early/2012/10/10/science.1227833

This result may be an artefact of the present ecosystem of journals and submission, either efficient or inefficient depending on your view, but less likely to survive a switch to open access, which is not a scenario considered in this paper, however.

Steve

Steve Hitchcock
WAIS Group, Building 32
School of Electronics and Computer Science
University of Southampton, SO17 1BJ, UK
Email: sh94r at ecs.soton.ac.uk
Twitter: http://twitter.com/stevehit
Connotea: http://www.connotea.org/user/stevehit
Tel: +44 (0)23 8059 9379    Fax: +44 (0)23 8059 9379

On 12 Oct 2012, at 16:42, Jan Velterop wrote:

> There are of course also problems with submission fees. If you have to pay and still run the risk of rejection, you would want to be very sure that the peer-review has been carried out professionally and well, and you would expect accountability. Many journals would risk failure on the accountability front, I suspect. 
> 
> But the benefits reach beyond fairness. Submissions would be far less speculative and pitched at the right level far more often than is the case now. Preventing the cascading down effect, with all the waste of reviewers' time that comes with multiple rounds of rejection and submission elsewhere, must be an attractive consequence. Not to mention the reformatting of manuscript necessary for many a new submission (because to a different journal) of a previously rejected article.