Open minded, open review, open access, open all the way
While we encourage editors to adopt our innovative open access publishing model, we do understand if editors prefer a more classic way of handling manuscripts, provided that editors seek a high quality in research publications. Whether editors wish to adopt our model or not is their decision and only theirs!Step 1. Submitting manuscript
At this stage, we want to simplify the authors’ life. There will be no lengthy guidelines on how to format the text. The format will be kept as simple as possible. The authors’ focus should be on the content as opposed to the form, which will be handled by the publisher. Authors submit their piece, and after a few checks on the manuscript to verify simple things such as the amount of words or whether there is an abstract and references, the manuscript is then screened for similarity. However, contrary to most, not to say all journals, we feel that the very first report should be a private matter for authors, thus offering them the opportunity to revise their text without the shame of being labelled as a plagiarist in front of the editorial board. The second similarity report (if required) is attached to the manuscript for further reference to editors and reviewers.Step 2. Selecting reviewers
Finding the most appropriate reviewers for a specific paper is a complex endeavour. Given that PhD students (with the help of their supervisors) are the best placed to appoint their external and internal examiners responsible for evaluating their research, we believe that authors are also the best placed to name their reviewers. As such, we ask authors to suggest at least two experts in their own field of research who are willing to undertake the review of their paper, and this under the editors’ guidance. Indeed, we do not want expedient reviews performed by “friends”; we seek professional, transparent and objective reviews. As such, the peer review is open and collaborative between authors, reviewers, and editors. In return for their commitment to quality, reviewers take credit for their work by signing the published paper and may receive a financial compensation, but only if they want to. If reviewers prefer to give their time instead of receiving financial compensation, their money goes in a pay-it-forward box which will be used to help authors with limited to no funding.Step 3. Screening manuscript
At this stage, the role of editors is to simply monitor that everything is alright. In principle, all manuscripts go through the review process, regardless of quality, unless editors spot something inappropriate or offensive. A change in reviewers is possible if editors have a better candidate in mind for the manuscript.Step 4. Reviewing collaboratively
Collaborative work between authors and reviewers is organised around three rounds. Round 1 is performed by reviewers independently from one another, as we do not want a junior reviewer to be influenced by the comments of a more experienced researcher. Then, the authors revise accordingly. Round 2, the reviewers can see each other's review and the authors' revisions; they can recommend publication or ask for more changes, in which case authors will have to revise again. Round 3, the reviewers can recommend publication or point to areas still in need of improvement, and send their conclusions to the editors.Step 5. Editing manuscript
The editors make their decision in accordance with the reviewers' reports and the authors’ revisions. They can (1) reject the article, in which case authors will leave the process with plenty of feedback from two expert reviewers and one editor to improve their research and writing; (2) accept the article and ask for additional changes; or (3) accept the article as it is.Step 6. Production and publication
The accepted article is then copy-edited (the style of the author is kept, we just ensure that the language is correct) and then typeset. Authors e-sign (1) a contributor agreement (they keep their copyright and choose the CC licence they prefer), (2) a statement of authorship (in which the role of each author is fully detailed), (3) a statement of non conflict of interest, and (4) a statement of ethics (if appropriate). Additionally, the editors and reviewers have their name on the manuscript so as to keep a record of who contributed to achieve publication. A DOI number is assigned to the article, the paper is then published online, available for anybody to read immediately, with no embargo periods. Care is placed on the inclusion of meta tags so as to rapidly get indexed by search engines. Other free indexing solutions are constantly being considered, the aim being to achieve a high level of visibility.