PeerJ launches open access into a new realm

A service that is travelling along similar lines of what I’m interested in for open publishing has launched today. PeerJ is being pitched as a cross between PLoS ONE and arXiv and indeed the company was founded by former PLoS ONE and Mendeley folk. It’s an interesting model where authors signup with a pre-paid plan. $99 gets you unlimited public preprints and 1 peer reviewed paper per year. $169 adds unlimited private preprints and another paper per year. $259 ups you to unlimited publications. And its nice as you can chose to pay once your paper is accepted (see how it works) so an author isn’t just being fleeced. There also appear to be reasonable plans for large numbers of co-authors etc. They also require members to review once per year. Nice.

I’m still reading through all of the materials about it myself, and there’s a lot here to digest and meditate on. It still appears that review is not open – both before and after ‘publication’ – although you can publish the review-trail and previous versions along with the finished product if you’d like. But in general, this is pretty fantastic

Here are some links about the launch and useful additional reading. I’d love to know what folk out there think. Will you be using it? Time to put our money where our #openaccess mouths are? I’m thinking yes!

  • PeerJ Blog
  • PeerJ formally announced: Innovative new business model for open access at Confessions of a Science Librarian
  • An interview with the founders of PeerJ, an innovative new academic publishing startup at the Mendeley Blog
  • Scholarly Publishing 2012: Meet PeerJ at Publishers Weekly
  • Interview with Peter Binfield and Jason Hoyt of PeerJ at Confessions of a Science Librarian
  • PeerJ – a brave new world? at Reciprocal Space
  • Pay (less) to publish: ambitious journal aims to disrupt scholarly publishing at Ars Technica
  • Scientific Journal Offers Flat Fee to Authors for ‘All You Can Publish’ at SciAm
  • New OA Journal, Backed by O’Reilly, May Disrupt Academic Publishing
  • The Publishing Buffet

    My question to you all – does this new entry to the publishing market solve everything? Is it a panacea? Are there things you wish it did better, or is it just the right balance?

  • #SciFund Round 2 FTW!

    SciFund Round 2 is now complete, and it pulled in $100,345 for science! 43% of the projects achieved 100% or more of their goal – almost double of round 1 – and 60% of all funds asked for were secured. Numerous projects that didn’t fully reach their goal were above 80%. A TON of great research is going to come out of this, and I am excited!

    Science crowdfunding continues to grow as a viable source of research fund. To explore this further, Jai and I participated in an online hangout for SciLingual and discussed science crowdfunding with Liz Neeley, Jerry Nguyen, and the folk from Microryza. A lot of interesting stuff came up, so I’m posting the video of the even below for you all to checkout. If you’re new to the idea of science crowdfunding, or want to learn some of the nitty-gritty, check it out!