A few days ago, the journal eLife published a self-study on the first year of its new publishing model, and it is well worth a look. Here are some notes based on my own experience with the journal as author and reviewing editor: markusmeister.com/2024/03/17/a-y….
A few days ago, the journal eLife published a self-study on the first year of its new publishing model, and it is well worth a look. Here are some notes based on my own experience with the journal as author and reviewing editor: markusmeister.com/2024/03/17/a-y….
@mameister4 Thanks for sharing! I'm curious about "eLife’s new model is just as selective as the old model." Comments made by the former EIC led me to believe this is because of limited editorial and reviewer resources, not selectivity. could you comment on that in your experience?
@mameister4 re: "shocking how many manuscripts on biorXiv are still built like the dead stacks of paper we mailed to the publisher in the 1980s". Just note this has been solved 😀 connect.biorxiv.org/news/2022/02/2…
@mameister4 Really interesting to hear this. I fully agree with ‘live’ paper comment. Makes reading a lot easier. The ‘static’ format is a necessary remnant due to journal requirements. Why isn’t there a “Universal Submissions Format” of sort? Journals can then just build translators.