How do you think about PeerJ? - (Aug/04/2013 )

As a new open access journal, PeerJ has been starting to accept papers for about half a year. I think its novelty is the strategy of paying money for publishing. How do you think of this journal? Besides, since its IF cannot be released now, how high do you think of the IF of PeerJ could be?

It seems a nice initiative!

And looking at the reviewers... there are some "big" names so its not some obscure new journal.

I also see some familiar names in the "Governing Board".

I am a fan of open source papers.. so I like it.

I think one of the novelties is also that it charges a membership fee for authors that allows them to publish once a year or something like that, if I'm correct....

Tabaluga on Mon Aug 5 11:41:24 2013 said:

I think one of the novelties is also that it charges a membership fee for authors that allows them to publish once a year or something like that, if I'm correct....

no you need to (or are asked to) to a review once a year (check a paper)

Ah yes, I mixed it up with the fact that they are allowed to publish in certain intervals for a lifetime then...

I also like the idea of open source. It seems traditional journals can be replaced by technology (like stock brokers and real estate agents). Aren't the "big" names the ones who created all the trouble (cronyism, unscrupulous review practices, etc.) with traditional journals?

doxorubicin on Mon Aug 5 13:24:32 2013 said:

I also like the idea of open source. It seems traditional journals can be replaced by technology (like stock brokers and real estate agents). Aren't the "big" names the ones who created all the trouble (cronyism, unscrupulous review practices, etc.) with traditional journals?

No, I ment names that ring a bell.. scientists that have a reputation...

I am also a fan of open source Journal, it is more flexible. No limitation of number of pages!

I like open source Journals. All of us probably have at least ones problem with read some (mostly older) paper because it is in limited access journal issue. Open access journals are free to read but not for publish. But in most cases when You have funding for whole project You have money for publication in it. So the change for author is small, but this system provide big positive change for readers.

I agree with pito - names, names, names. New journal don't have impact factor so it must have big support in names of editors or/and strong family of journals (eg. ESA).

I don't agree with newborn about size. I think that size remind You about staing focus as much as possible. If You cannot present Your work short and clear it is very likely that there is some general problem with Your experiment (or Your understanding of its results). It may be better to rethink of it at all rather than trying to sqeeze it to any journal issue (and waste readers time on it ;)). Making paper simple and short is best citation booster for it.

Cacaucenturion2 on Mon Aug 5 01:45:21 2013 said:

As a new open access journal, PeerJ has been starting to accept papers for about half a year. I think its novelty is the strategy of paying money for publishing. How do you think of this journal? Besides, since its IF cannot be released now, how high do you think of the IF of PeerJ could be?

"Paying money for publication" you don't mean that they actually remunerate the authors who publish articles with them, do you? Sorry for sounding ridiculous, but that's what I understand from the sentence and I know how unlikely that is.