The Development of an On-line Submission and Peer Review System

Online submission and peer review is emerging as the next step forward for many journal publishers in an ever increasing drive to take advantage of technological improvements in transferring data electronically over the internet. The Electronic Submission and PEer REview (ESPERE) project was initiated in 1996 as an electronic Libraries (eLib) initiative of the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE). Subsequently the project continued as a self-funding group composed of a consortium of learned society and commercial journal publishers intent on utilising the changes in technology to improve the services they provide to their authors as well as cutting their costs and increasing efficiencies.

Can open access repositories and peer-reviewed journals coexist?

It is often assumed that open access repositories and peer-reviewed journals are in competition with each other and therefore will in the long term be unable to coexist. This paper takes a critical look at that assumption. It draws on the available evidence of actual practice which indicates that coexistence is possible at least in the medium term. It discusses possible future models of publication and dissemination which include open access, repositories, peer review and journals. The paper suggests that repositories and journals may coexist in the long term but that both may have to undergo significant changes. Important areas where changes need to occur include: widespread deployment of repository infrastructure, development of version identification standards, development of value-added features, new business models, new approaches to quality control and adoption of digital preservation as a repository function.

Electronic Publishing : the evolution and economics of a hybrid journal.

The technical, social and economic issues of electronic publishing are examined by using as a case study the evolution of the journal Electronic Publishing Origination, Dissemination and Design (EP-odd) which is published by John Wiley Ltd. The journal is a `hybrid' one, in the sense that it appears in both electronic and paper form, and is now in its ninth year of publication. The author of this paper is the journal's Editor-in- Chief. The first eight volumes of EP-odd have been distributed via the conventional subscription method but a new method, from volume 9 onwards, is now under discussion whereby accepted papers will first be published on the EP-odd web site, with the printed version appearing later as a once-per-volume operation. Later sections of the paper lead on from the particular experiences with EP-odd into a more general discussion of peer review and the acceptability of e-journals in universities, the changing role of libraries, the sustainability of traditional subscription pricing and the prospects for `per paper' sales as micro-payment technologies become available.

How to reply to referees’ comments when submitting manuscripts for publication

Background: The publication of articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals is a fairly complex and stepwise process that involves responding to referees’ comments. Little guidance is available in the biomedical literature on how to deal with such comments. Objective: The objective of this article is to provide guidance to novice writers on dealing with peer review comments in a way that maximizes the chance of subsequent acceptance. Methods: This will be a literature review and review of the author’s experience as a writer and referee. Results: Where possible, the author should consider revising and resubmitting rather than sending an article elsewhere. A structured layout for responding to referees’ comments is suggested that includes the 3 golden rules: (1) respond completely; (2) respond politely; and (3) respond with evidence. Conclusion: Responding to referees’ comments requires the writer to overcome any feelings of personal attack, and to instead concentrate on addressing referees’ concerns in a courteous, objective, and evidencebased way. (J Am Acad Dermatol 2004;51:79-83.)