Tag: peer-review

Posted on

In a nutshell: The four peer review stages in RIO explained

Having received a number of requests to further clarify our peer review process, we hereby provide a concise summary of the four author- and journal-organised peer review stages applicable to all research article publications submitted to RIO. 

 

Stage 1: Author-organised pre-submission review

Optional. This review process can take place in the ARPHA Writing Tool (AWT) during the authoring process BEFORE the manuscript is submitted to the journal. It works much like discussion of a manuscript within an institutional department, akin to soliciting comments and changes on a collaborate Google Doc file. The author can invite reviewers via the “+Reviewers” button located on the upper horizontal bar of the AWT. Then, the author(s) and the reviewers are able to work together in the ARPHA online environment through an inline comment/reply interface. The reviewers are then expected to submit a concise evaluation form and a final statement.

The pre-submission review is not mandatory, but we strongly encourage it. Pre-submission reviews will be published along with the article and will bear a DOI and citation details. Articles reviewed before submission are labelled “Reviewed” when published. Manuscripts that have not been peer-reviewed before submission can be published on the basis of in-house editorial and technical checks, and will be labelled “Reviewable”.

If there is no pre-submission review, the authors have to provide a public statement explaining why they do not have, or need a pre-submission review for this work (e.g. a manuscript has been previously reviewed; a grant proposal has already been accepted for funding, etc.).

 

Stage 2: Pre-submission technical and editorial check with in-house editors or relevant members of RIO’s editorial board

Mandatory. Provided by the journal’s editorial office within the ARPHA Writing Tool when a manuscript is submitted to the journal. If necessary, it can take several rounds, until the manuscript is improved to the level appropriate for direct submission and publication in the journal. This stage ensures format compliance with RIO’s requirements, as well as relevant funding-body and discipline-specific requirements.

 

Stage 3: Community-sourced post-publication peer review

Continuously available. All articles published in RIO are available for post-publication review, regardless of them being subject to a pre-submission review or not, or their review status (Reviewable, Reviewed, or RIO-validated). The author may decide to publish a revised version of an article anytime based on feedback received from the community. Putatively, even years after publication of the original work our system allows a review to be published alongside the paper.  

 

Stage 4: Journal-organized post-publication peer review

Optional. If the author(s) request it, the journal can additionally organize a formal peer review from discipline-specific researchers in a timely manner. Authors may suggest reviewers during the submission process, but RIO may not necessarily invite suggested reviewers.

Once an editor and reviewers are invited by the journal, the review process happens much like the conventional peer review in many other journals, but is entirely open and transparent. It is also subject to a small additional fee, in order to cover the management of this process. When this review stage is successfully completed and the editors have decided to validate the article, the revised article version is labelled “RIO-validated”.

Posted on

RIO supports Publons in finding this year’s Sentinels of Science

Peer Review Week is coming and this year’s topic “Recognition for Review” is rather close to our hearts!

Developing the concept of RIO, among our central goals was to create a workflow that allows scientists – authors, reviewers and editors alike – to get the maximum credit for their work.

peer review week 2016 close

RIO implements one of the most transparent peer review processes, allowing authors to choose from several peer-review options.

The journal offers the unique opportunity for pre-submission peer review, where authors can invite mentors, colleagues and fellow scientists to review the manuscript and contribute, still during the authoring process.

Additionally, we power post-publication peer review, where all registered users have the option to publicly review journal articles.

RIO, alongside all other Pensoft journals, is also proud to highlight its partnership with Publons and showcase our commitment to honouring the efforts of our expert peer reviewers.

As part of Peer Review Week 2016, we support Publons in their excellent Sentinels of Science Awards initiative, which will put the spotlight on the most prolific heroes of peer review over the past year.

Just like us, Publons recognize that bad science slows down the rate of discovery. Expert peer reviewers protect us from bad science. These efforts on the front line help us in finding cures, develop innovative technologies and realise human potential.

To get recognized for your contributions to speeding up science this Peer Review Week Sign up to Publons now and effortlessly track, verify and showcase every review you do for RIO, all other Pensoft titles, and across the rest of the world’s journals.

*

For more information visit: https://blog.publons.com/unveiling-the-sentinels-of-science-for-prw16/

Posted on

RIO pricing: affordable, flexible, sustainable

Today, we are happy to announce our initial pricing scheme and launch promotions.

Many people have asked us what we are going to charge for our novel services – we welcome such questions. In an age when some are charging in excess of $5000 for publishing a single open-access article, we are proud to keep our prices low, but sustainable.

You may notice the pricing structure is more complicated than usual. Don’t Panic. In this blog post, we’ll break it down into easy pieces. We think this flexibility of pricing is a positive feature: it reflects that some outputs are less costly to publish, and others are more expensive. We also offer à la carte pricing with respect to optional services such as linguistic editing, PR services and paper-printed copies.

Try RIO for free

RIO is already open for submissions. To encourage you to give it a try, we’re making idea-stage submissions completely free from now on until the end of April 2016. This promotional offer applies to the following output types if submitted through the ARPHA writing tool: Small Grant Proposals, Research Ideas, PhD Project Plans, PostDoc Project Plans, Data Management Plans and Software Management Plans.

pricing-1

Very small outcomes have very small prices. We think producing a professional, machine-readable version of your work, assigning it a DOI, and enabling optional community peer review is something worth paying for. At € 50, single-figure publications (see Do and Mobley, 2015) are particularly appealingly priced, so as to encourage the community to explore this new format.  

pricing-2

For those who like to compare rates between different open-access journals, you’ll find our research article price very competitive at only €550. Unlike many open access journals, we accept review articles, too, as well as a wide variety of other research outputs.

pricing-3

Finally, you might be worried that charging for each and every single output could get quite expensive over time for an individual or an institution. We’ve got that covered with our package plans. For individuals, if you commit to buying a package upfront, we’re happy to reduce the overall price per output published to an average price between EUR 140 and 330 per article (see table below). For funders, institutions, conference organisers and others, we’re happy to make even more competitive deals; just contact us to discuss your needs at: rio@riojournal.com.

pricing-4

For further details, please see the Article Processing Charges and Promotions entries on the RIO website.

 

Posted on

PART 2: The ARPHA Writing Tool: Adding Value to RIO

Last week, we presented some basic features of the ARPHA Writing Tool (AWT), focusing on the collaborative authoring process. This post will add the novelties that ARPHA has adopted when it comes to submission and post-submission processes.

arpha-validation

   

Two-step VALIDATION:

Checks are a must whenever high-quality, professional writing is concerned. Shortly before submitting their manuscripts via ARPHA, the authors are free to initiate the first step of the validation process at any time. As a result, an automated technical check runs through the manuscript to verify its consistency and compliance with the JATS (Journal Article Tag Suite) standard as well as key elements of the journal’s policy.

After the automated checks, there is a second-layer of human checks made by RIO editorial assistants in order to bring the manuscript to a pre-publication level. They check compliance with further elements of the journal’s policy as well as linguistic consistency and work with the authors before finalising it altogether.

 

After SUBMISSION:

Even after submission, collaboration continues. With the peer-review stage being as transparent and open as the whole vision of RIO is, this step is no less straightforward and organised. All peer reviews are automatically consolidated into a single online file that makes the editorial process simple and pleasant. This is made possible by the XML-based workflow in the AWT.

arpha-review-

PEER-REVIEW evolution:

Last week, we mentioned that an author can invite reviewers during the authoring stage itself. Let us elaborate here by saying that the ARPHA Writing Tool provides a functionality for pre-submission peer review(s) performed during the authoring process. These peer reviews are submitted together with the manuscript, so that the editorial evaluation and publication can be significantly sped up.

Post-publication UPDATES:

Even after an article is brought to life, ARPHA continues to play a role in it. Because of the XML workflow, authors are able to publish updated versions of their articles at any time. Once they request such an update, their work is returned to the ARPHA Writing Tool, where authors and peers are to collaborate once again. Eventually, the two versions are linked via CrossMark, so that nothing is lost.   

As you might have already noticed, just like RIO, the new ARPHA Writing Tool is constructed entirely around the needs of its authors. Why not find out yourself by giving ARPHA & RIO a try when they open for submission early next month?

 

Posted on

Counting days and tweets: What’s happened to RIO Journal so far?

So, here we are, counting days and Twitter impressions since Research Ideas & Outcomes (or, RIO for short) our new open access journal was officially announced on 1st September 2015. As much as we were excited to take this long-prepared and anticipated stand in the spotlight, we are still holding our breath ahead of the big event – the launch itself, scheduled for November 2015.

In the meantime, when not busy welcoming our very first subject editors, we have our ear to the ground, so that we can make sure to provide everyone with the best services and insight. The truth is, we don’t only value attention, we deeply appreciate your opinion and respect your needs and concerns.

So, here below we provide a short summary of the eventful first week of RIO Journal:

It all started on 1st September on Twitter. Among the constantly growing list of our first followers, there were a lot of welcoming retweets, sounding just as excited as we were:

Then, the time came for the world media to give its verdict:

This week sees the birth of a new type of scientific journal, one that will publish not only study results and data, but also research ideas and proposals. It’s called Research Ideas and Outcomes (RIO).
/The Scientist, 3rd September/

With so many science journals already in existence, it is rare for a new title to draw attention. But researchers and publishing experts are taking notice of Research Ideas and Outcomes, or RIO, an open-access journal that launched on 1 September.
/Nature, 3rd September/

Understandably, the hottest discussion points were RIO’s initiatives:

> To present openly the whole process of the research cycle especially including research proposals
> To publish such ideas regardless of them being eventually approved or rejected for funding
> To apply a transparent, public, and open peer-review policy

Stephen Curry, a structural biologist at Imperial College London shared on Twitter that in his opinion RIO is “bringing a new sense of transparency and collaboration to research”, while he voiced his strong support for preprint publications and open feedback in his Guardian blog. “Preprints can help to refocus attention where it matters – on the work itself, not where it is published. In so doing, they have the potential to revitalize the scientific enterprise”, his column reads.

“I like the idea of getting “publishing-credit” for my research proposals and other research output. Roughly speaking for every proposal I write, I write one paper less”, points out computational chemist at the University of Copenhagen Jan Jansen on explaining why he accepted the invitation to become one of RIO’s subject editors.

At the end of the day, some of RIO’s innovations couldn’t escape being challenged by some criticisms. A librarian and known extreme critic of open access journals, Jeffrey Beall questioned the freedom given to RIO’s authors to make their own choice of reviewers.

One of the RIO’s own subject editors, Ivo Grigorov, a marine scientist at the Technical University of Denmark also raised his concerns on the matter. Yet, he and our ever growing list of editors and advisory board are sticking with us:

In his turn, Ross Mounce, a postdoc at the Natural History Museum, London and a founding editor of RIO, explained how the new open access journal seeks to improve the “immensely wasteful” traditional research process in his piece on the popular LSE Impact blog.

Ross also gave a podcast interview for Beta Pleated Chic, he spoke in detail about the whole list of innovative tools and strategies.

If you know of any other press mentions or blogs about RIO Journal, please don’t hesitate to forward them to us on Twitter @RIOJournal.