The Cellar - View Single Post

Lamplighter · 01-01-2014, 08:31 AM

Clod, I found that a very interesting article
... mainly because I retired my own research career before Gore invented the internet.

I followed the link in the article, and was amused that the first screen was a "sign up" page.
But at least it did not ask for subscription $ or an institutional certification.

I was also amused that the first actual article I scanned had 100+ references.
In my day, the editors would have been more concerned about saving paper !

OK, to the main points.
The concept of eLife does seem different than paper journals in the length of time-to-publication.
But the consolidation of reviews seems the best improvement.
I do remember receiving editor- and peer-review letters requesting almost opposing changes.
This seems to be something all editors could/should do, not just on-line journals.

So, I get the better time factor, the consolidated reviews, and editorial decisions,
and now to my remaining question... what is meant by an "open-source" model.

Professional competition, jealousy and antagonism did exist, and probably still does.
But authors were usually were allowed to recommend or exclude
certain people as "peer reviewers" of their submission.
I assume most journal editors still allow this sort of guidance.

As I read the link, there is still a "senior editor" and "co-editors" that act as the gate-keepers.
The "peer-review" seems to come only after these editors have already committed to publication.

ETA: I just received an eLife email asking mw to confirm my subscription
... requesting email address and password. Now why would they need/want that ?

01-01-2014, 08:31 AM	#14
Lamplighter Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: Bottom lands of the Missoula floods Posts: 6,402	Clod, I found that a very interesting article ... mainly because I retired my own research career before Gore invented the internet. I followed the link in the article, and was amused that the first screen was a "sign up" page. But at least it did not ask for subscription $ or an institutional certification. I was also amused that the first actual article I scanned had 100+ references. In my day, the editors would have been more concerned about saving paper ! OK, to the main points. The concept of eLife does seem different than paper journals in the length of time-to-publication. But the consolidation of reviews seems the best improvement. I do remember receiving editor- and peer-review letters requesting almost opposing changes. This seems to be something all editors could/should do, not just on-line journals. So, I get the better time factor, the consolidated reviews, and editorial decisions, and now to my remaining question... what is meant by an "open-source" model. Professional competition, jealousy and antagonism did exist, and probably still does. But authors were usually were allowed to recommend or exclude certain people as "peer reviewers" of their submission. I assume most journal editors still allow this sort of guidance. As I read the link, there is still a "senior editor" and "co-editors" that act as the gate-keepers. The "peer-review" seems to come only after these editors have already committed to publication. ETA: I just received an eLife email asking mw to confirm my subscription ... requesting email address and password. Now why would they need/want that ? Last edited by Lamplighter; 01-01-2014 at 08:44 AM.