Authors, peer reviewers, and readers: What is expected from each player in collaborative publishing?
Main Article Content
Keywords
Cooperative Behavior, Peer Review, Research, Open Access Publishing, Periodicals as Topic
Abstract
Scholarly publishing is in a crisis, with the many stakeholders complaining about different aspects of the system. Authors want fast publication times, high visibility and publications in high-impact journals. Readers want freely accessible, high-quality articles. Peer reviewers want recognition for the work they perform to ensure the quality of the published articles. However, authors, peer reviewers, and readers are three different roles played by the same group of individuals, the users of the scholarly publishing system—and this system could work based on a collaborative publishing principle where “nobody pays, and nobody gets paid”.
References
2. Whitten JL, Bentley LD, eds. Systems analysis and design methods, 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2007. ISBN: 10: 0-07-305233-7
3. Read the Budapest Open Access Initiative. https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read (accessed Jan 3, 2021).
4. Fernandez-Llimos F. Collaborative publishing: the difference between 'gratis journals' and 'open access journals'. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2015;13(1):593. https://doi.org/10.18549/pharmpract.2015.01.593
5. Fernandez-Llimos F. Open access, predatory publishing and peer-review. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2014;12(1):427. https://doi.org/10.4321/s1886-36552014000100001
6. Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03759-y?sf225811500=1 (accessed Jan 3, 2021).
7. Van Noorden R. Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature. 2013;495(7442):426-429. https://doi.org/10.1038/495426a
8. Fernandez-Llimos F; Pharmacy Practice 2017 peer reviewers. Scholarly publishing depends on peer reviewers. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2018;16(1):1236. https://doi.org/10.18549/pharmpract.2018.01.1236
9. Fernandez-Llimos F; Pharmacy Practice 2018 peer reviewers. Peer review and publication delay. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2019;17(1):1502. https://doi.org/10.18549/pharmpract.2019.1.1502
10. ORCID 2019 Annual Report. https://orcid.figshare.com/ndownloader/files/22061544 (accessed Jan 3, 2021).
11. Fernandez-Llimos F. Is my paper relevant for an international audience?. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2020;18(2):1924. https://doi.org/10.18549/pharmpract.2020.2.1924
12. Fernandez-Llimos F, Salgado TM, Tonin FS; Pharmacy Practice 2019 peer reviewers . How many manuscripts should I peer review per year?. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2020;18(1):1804. https://doi.org/10.18549/pharmpract.2020.1.1804
13. Gernant SA, Bacci JL, Upton C, et al. Three opportunities for standardization: A literature review of the variation among pharmacists' patient care services terminology. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2020;16(6):766-775. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2019.08.034
14. Fernandez-Llimos F, Salgado TM. Standardization of pharmacy practice terminology and the Medical Subject Headings (MeSH) [published online ahead of print, 2020 Jul 8]. Res Social Adm Pharm. 2020; [ahead of print]. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sapharm.2020.07.005
15. Bachelet VC, Uribe FA, Díaz RA, et al. Author misrepresentation of institutional affiliations: protocol for an exploratory case study. BMJ Open. 2019;9(2):e023983. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2018-023983
16. Fernandez-Llimos F. Pharmacy Practice suffered a plagiarism case. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2012;10(1):1-2. https://doi.org/10.4321/s1886-36552012000100001
Article Sidebar
Article Details
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.