Authors, peer reviewers, and readers: What is expected from each player in collaborative publishing?

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”.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Kuhn TS. The Structure of scientific revolutions. Chicago: University Press; 1962.

Whitten JL, Bentley LD, eds. Systems analysis and design methods, 7th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2007. ISBN: 10: 0-07-305233-7

Read the Budapest Open Access Initiative. https://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/read (accessed Jan 3, 2021).

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

Fernandez-Llimos F. Open access, predatory publishing and peer-review. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2014;12(1):427. https://doi.org/10.4321/s1886-36552014000100001

Predatory journals: no definition, no defence. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-019-03759-y?sf225811500=1 (accessed Jan 3, 2021).

Van Noorden R. Open access: The true cost of science publishing. Nature. 2013;495(7442):426-429. https://doi.org/10.1038/495426a

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fernandez-Llimos F. Pharmacy Practice suffered a plagiarism case. Pharm Pract (Granada). 2012;10(1):1-2. https://doi.org/10.4321/s1886-36552012000100001

Published
2021-01-14
How to Cite
1.
Fernandez-Llimos F. Authors, peer reviewers, and readers: What is expected from each player in collaborative publishing?. Pharm Pract (Granada) [Internet]. 2021Jan.14 [cited 2021Mar.8];19(1):2284. Available from: https://pharmacypractice.org/journal/index.php/pp/article/view/2284
Section
Editorial