Presentation for a research school workshop on publishing strategies.

1. What happens to your article
after submission?
the Review Process, Ethics, Publishing
Contracts, Dissemination and Open Access
Caroline Sutton
Publisher, Co-Action Publishing
President, Open Access Scholarly Publisher’s Association (OASPA)
with input from Helle Goldman, Editor-in-Chief, Polar Research
Shared under a CCBY license
Lund University, CMPS Research School Retreat,
Röstånga, 30 Aug. 2012

2. Many of these slides are based on a
webinar presentation given by Helle
Goldman and Caroline Sutton for APECS,
Association of Polar Early Career Scientists.
The video is available here:
http://vimeo.com/39241330
Thank you to Editor-in-Chief Helle Goldman
for permission to use her contributions in
this presentation (slides 3-13). They have
been modified from the original.

3. A bit about Co-Action Publishing
 Founded by three former executives from academic publishing
industry
 Established as Swedish limited liability company in 2007
 Founding Member Open Access Scholarly Publishers
Association, OASPA, current President
 Publish Open Access journals across disciplines, including
Social Sciences and the Humanities, but primarily medicine
 Strong focus on quality of experience publishing authors have
when working with us.

4. What happens to your ms after
it’s submitted
(1) Ms is checked at editorial office.
(2) Editor invites reviewers (usually 2-5)
Editor identifies reviewers from:
• people who have reviewed for the journal before
• authors in the ms’s reference list
• authors of relevant articles in ISI Web of Science
• editor’s professional network
• author’s suggestions (in cover letter or online submission
form)

5. Tips
1) Read all the instructions/guidelines
2) Have your paper language edited if needed
3) May suggest reviewers or be asked to suggest reviewers
4) Anticipate what reviewers will say about your ms.
K.A. Nicholas & W. Gordon 2011. A quick guide to writing a solid
peer review. Eos, Transactions, American Geophysical Union 92,
233-234.

6. What happens to your ms after
it’s submitted
(6) Revised submission is evaluated.
The revised ms will then be straight-accepted, straight-rejected or
more revisions will be asked for. Ms can go through several rounds
of review/ revision. Depends on the journal’s editorial policy and
manpower.
(7) If accepted, you will probably be required to sign some kind of
publishing agreement.
(8) Paper is edited, copyedited, styled to layout, different
formats generated, metadata added,
(9) You will receive proofs that you are usually expected to turn
around quickly with your corrections. You may or may not get to
see/correct revised proofs – practice varies.
(10) Published – and sent to database and indexing
services, preserved, etc.

7. Understand your publishing
agreement
 Read your agreement with care.
 Make sure you understand what the agreement
permits you to do with the various versions of the
article. In doubt? Get clarification from the publishers!
Librarians are also very knowledgeable about this!
 If you’re the corresponding author, ensure your co-
authors have read and understood the terms of the
agreement.
 If you’re not the corr. author, make sure you’ve read
and understood the agreement.
 Make sure you understand your
university’s and/or funder’s policies.

8. What happens to your ms after
it’s submitted
(3) Reviewers send in their reviews.
(4) Editor assesses the reviews.
(5) Editor makes decision
• Straight reject
• Rejected, but paper can be resubmitted: a radical overhaul
might salvage the paper. Editor isn’t confident you can pull it
off but is willing to give you a chance.
• Conditional acceptance: paper needs major or minor
revisions; editor is fairly sure you can handle it but can’t
commit to publishing it yet.
• Straight accept. No changes needed. Rare!

9. Understand your publishing agreement
• Submitted Manuscript under Review (SMuR), also known as
Author’s Original Version or "preprint".
• Accepted Manuscript (AM), also known as "postprint". Not yet
edited, copyedited or laid out.
• Version of Record (VoR) or Definitive Work: fixed version of
journal article. The final, corrected, laid-out version (may or may
not include page numbers). Includes "early release" article that’s
formally identified as having been published before the compilation
of a volume issue – as long as it’s citable via a permanent
identifier. Doesn’t include "early release” article that’s still
undergoing copyediting, proof correction, layout changes.
Source: NISO/ALPSP Journal Article Versions Technical Working Group 2008. Journal article
versions (JAV): recommendations of the NISO/ALPSP JAV Technical Working Group. NISO-
RP-8-2008. Baltimore: National Information Standards Organization. Available at
www.niso.org/publications/rp/RP-8-2008.pdf

10. Understand your publishing
agreement
Most publishers’ agreements allow authors to do the following
with Submitted (SMuR) and Accepted (AM) ("preprints" &
"postprints”):
• pass around to colleagues
• use in course packs
• post on personal/institutional website/repository – often
after a waiting ("embargo") period, e.g., 2 years
Source: S. Morris 2009. Journal authors’ rights: perception and reality. PRC Summary Paper 5. London: Publishing Research
Consortium. Available at http://www.publishingresearch.net/author_rights.htm

11. Understand your publishing
agreement
Most publishers’ agreements allow authors to do the
following with the final published PDF (VoR) of their
articles:
• e-mail to colleagues
• use in course packs
Most publishers (> 90%) do not allow authors to post final
published PDF on personal/institutional
website/repositories.* Source: Morris 2009.
*Most authors think this is permitted.
Check: SHERPA/RoMEO http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/ for
Publisher copyright policies and self-archiving
Librarians are also knowledgeable here!

12. Single-blind and double-
blind review
Single-blind review: the reviewers know who the author is,
but the author doesn’t know who the reviewers are.
Double-blind review: reviewers don’t know who the author is;
author doesn’t know who the reviewers are.
See following article and references therein: R. Snodgrass 2006. Single-
versus double-blind reviewing: an analysis of the literature. SIGMOD
Record 35, 8-21. Available online:
http://www.sigmod.org/publications/sigmod-record/0609/index.html

13. Ethics
• Salami slicing • Plagiarism/self-plagiarism
• Duplicate publication • Fabricated data
• Authorship
iThenticate, a new plagiarism tool used by leading publishers.
M. Roig. 2006. Avoiding plagiarism, self-plagiarism, and other questionable writing practices: a guide to
ethical writing. Available online at:
http://facpub.stjohns.edu/~roigm/plagiarism/
Editorial. 2005. The cost of salami slicing. Nature Materials 4, 1. Available online at:
http://www.nature.com/nmat/journal/v4/n1/full/nmat1305.html
E. Wager & S. Kleinert 2010. Responsible research publication: international standards for authors.
Available online at: http://publicationethics.org/international-standards-editors-and-authors
Washington University in St. Louis: Policy for authorship on scientific and scholarly publications.
Available online at: http://wustl.edu/policies/authorship.html

14. Public Library of
Science OA lock

15. OPEN ACCESS = Free Access + Re-use
2 Routes to Open
Access:
Green (archiving)
Gold (publishing)

16. The ”Green Road”
 Achieving Open Access through the self archiving of peer-
reviewed journal articles.
 Different publishers have different policies on deposition of
articles (as noted earlier in presentation)
 List and policies available at SHERPA-RoMEO
(www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo)
 Institutional OA policies/mandates
The ”Gold Road”
Publish with an Open Access journal that provides:
 Immediate free access
 Re-use of content (CCBY license, or CCNC)
Deposit final published article in repository

17. Creative Commons
Licenses enable re-use
rights
 Attribution 3.0
(CCBY or CCAL)
• Gaining momentum as
a standard.
 Attribution-
Noncommercial 3.0
(CCBY-NC)
* Controversial due to lack
of clarity over what is
commercial use &
’double-dipping’.
Read and learn about them here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

18. What does a CCBY license mean for
authors?
You are welcome to post any version of your article – including the
final PDF – anywhere you like, including institutional and other
repositories.
Your work can be re-used – in part or in whole – by others, as long as
they cite your work as the original source. This means wider
distribution.
You can re-use your work in part or in whole, without asking
permission from the publisher.
Open Access journals, that are machine readable, tend to experience
high levels of usage. For authors, this means a greater likelihood of
work being read and cited.

19. A few Open Access myths

20. Myth 1: It is expensive to publish in an Open Access
journal
Truth: The most common fee is NO fee. Averages are lower than what tend
to be cited, and a growing number of funds are supporting researchers.
Study by Bo-Christer Björk and David Solomon shows that the average
charge per article across disciplines is 906 USD.
‘A study of open access journals using article processing charges’, DOI:
10.1002/asi.22673
Paying for an Open Choice option on a subscription journal can be costly.
When paying an APC do make sure that you know what you are paying for,
i.e. that the article will be published under a CC license.

21. Myth 2: Open Access journals are not peer reviewed/
publish low quality work
TRUTH: Open Access journals ARE peer reviewed.
Serious editors and publishers of Open Access journals are concerned with
publishing quality manuscripts.
Reputable Open Access publishers have mechanisms in place to separate
editorial decisions and ability to pay.
The emergence of many new actors within the publishing sector has created
confusion. OASPA membership criteria and code of conduct can provide a
guide to evaluating unfamiliar publishers:
Credible editorial board listed with full names and affiliations
 Any fees are easily identifiable
 Licensing is clear and can be found on individual articles
 Peer review process is clearly defined
Business address listed
 Complaints address listed
Ownership information available
Clean layout, appropriate use of language on
website

22. Myth 3: Publishing your work Open Access is good for
society but there are few benefits for you
TRUTH: there are important advantages for you
Citation advantage (See The Open Access Scholarly Information
Sourcebook,
http://www.openoasis.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article
&id=560&Itemid=391)
General usage increases, and the number of points from which your
article can be accessed also increases.
Greater visibility.
Better rankings in Google Scholar.
Practitioners and others outside of the research community can access
and use your work, leading to impact beyond citations.

23. How is Open Access
impacting other areas of scholarly
communications?

24. Article level
metrics
Mackay DF, Nelson SM, Haw SJ, Pell JP (2012) PLoS Med 9(3): e1001175.
doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001175

25. Alternative measures of
impact
http://altmetrics.org/manifesto/

26. www.total-impact.org

28. http://scholar.google.com/citations

29. New Forms of Peer
 Open Peer Review Review
 Post publication review
Commenting & ratings
systems
Others
 The rise of ”mega journals”.
Following PLoS One example,
peer review only to address
scientific rigor, not potential
importance or impact.

30. Open data and linking
Some references:
Science Commons Protocol for
implementing:
http://sciencecommons.org/projec
ts/publishing/open-access-data-
protocol/
List of data repositories:
http://oad.simmons.edu/oadwiki/
Data_repositories
Challenges: OpenAIRE Plus:
Requires adoption of new behavior for http://www.openaire.eu/
most researchers
Difficult to devise universal policies John Willbanks:
across disciplines http://www.slideshare.net/wilbank
Legal issues s/openphacts-wilbanks
Technical issues

31. Re-use to enhance
scientific discovery
http://imageweb.zoo.ox.ac.uk/pub/2008/plospaper/latest/#top

32. THANK YOU!
Caroline.Sutton@co-action.net