September 22, 2003

Meet the editors

There is general agreement that researchers need high-impact Open Access journals that will publish the very best science. BioMed Central's Journal of Biology and Public Library of Science's PLoS Biology aim to attract the type of articles that authors usually send to the traditional 'top three' journals. Journal of Biology published its first article last year and PLoS Biology has just published its first papers online ahead of the first issue in October. Open Access Now talked to the editors of these Open Access 'top' journals.

"Authors told us they needed a high-impact Open Access journal for their best work"

Theo Bloom

Theodora Bloom, PhD, is Deputy Editorial Director of BioMed Central. Before rejoining the Current Science Group (CSG), which includes BioMed Central, she was the Deputy Editor of Current Biology, established by CSG and sold to Elsevier Science in 1997. With undergraduate and PhD degrees from Cambridge University, UK, she worked on the cell cycle as a post-doctoral fellow at Harvard Medical School before joining the biology staff at Nature. In 1992 she joined Current Biology as its Deputy Editor and later became editorial/publishing manager for Current Biology, Structure and Chemistry & Biology. She rejoined CSG in 1999 as editor of Genome Biology and is now also editor of Journal of Biology. Open Access Now talked to Theo about her role and latest journal.

Why did you choose to start working on Open Access journals?

"I remain very proud of the work I did with Current Biology, helping it develop from a fledgling two-monthly review journal to a very successful fortnightly journal of reviews and original research. But my personal style is better suited to working in the innovative atmosphere of a 'start-up company' rather than a large business oriented corporation, and in 1999, when Harold Varmus, Pat Brown and others circulated the 'E-Biosci' proposal, it became clear to me that the future would lie in Open Access publishing. As the 'genomics revolution' was also evident by then, the opportunity to go back to square one and start Genome Biology as an Open Access forum for research in this new field seemed too good to miss."

How did you come to start Journal of Biology?

"When I rejoined the Current Science Group the ideas that led to what is now BioMed Central - the first major biomedical publisher to offer Open Access to all research - were just crystallizing. We decided that, in addition to journals like Genome Biology that cover one field, we wanted to provide a complete series of Open Access journals - the BMC series - that cover all biological and medical disciplines. These journals have to date published hundreds of papers of interest to those in closely related fields. But as the Open Access movement gained momentum - with the Public Library of Science (PLoS) Open Letter and related initiatives - many authors told us that they also needed a high-impact Open Access journal for their best work. Potential authors and editorial advisors told us what features they felt were missing from the 'big three' journals where they traditionally publish their most interesting work (most often to do with the peer-review process) - as well as what works well (mostly to do with wide distribution and with colleagues' perception of status). We set out to establish Journal of Biology to meet their needs. We were delighted when Martin Raff (University College London) agreed to serve as Editor-in-Chief; Martin's views have been central to the policies and working practices we have developed for this new journal."

What are the special challenges for a new high-impact journal?

"One obvious challenge is persuading potential authors to take a chance on something new. But many people already realize the benefits of Open Access to the scientific community at large and to the future of research. An immediate benefit to authors is knowing how many people read their articles: Journal of Biology's first research article has had close to 20,000 downloads from our site and doubtless many more via PubMed Central and other full-text repositories."

"Another challenge is persuading authors and readers that all articles really will be of high quality and impact, and we have chosen to do that by publishing relatively few articles in the early issues and ensuring that all of them receive the highest possible recommendations from referees (and, where appropriate, the Editorial Board). So far we have declined to publish 15-20 articles for every one we have accepted for publication. Some authors worry about perceived fashions in the taste of editors of high-profile journals, or they sense that the peer-review process in those journals is not fair. But they can be reassured by Journal of Biology's combination of a respected academic Editor-in-Chief and a professional editor working together to bring the best of speed and consistent professionalism along with the intellectual rigor and fairness they may associate with an academic editor. Every article that is published by Journal of Biology represents a joint decision between the in-house team and the Editor-in-Chief."

What makes Journal of Biology different from other journals?

"In some ways all high-profile journals want the same thing - to publish exceptionally interesting and important research and to bring it to the widest possible readership. One difference is Journal of Biology's decision to publish on a somewhat erratic schedule, which depends only on when each exceptional research article becomes ready, rather than making some articles wait for an issue date, or risking padding an issue with some articles of less interest or importance. There is no shortage of space in the online journal, so we can publish as many great articles as come along and at the necessary length (or brevity); and consistent with the ethos of Open Access, we encourage authors to provide all supporting data with each article. The journalistic coverage and minireview published with each research article helps to explain the significance of the article to readers in more distant fields. And although the journal is fully accessible online, we are glad to be able to distribute print issues to a very broad audience (currently over 80,000 life scientists) so that those who prefer the old fashioned feel of a journal in their hands can read each article and its associated commentary in print. And like all of BioMed Central's journals, Journal of Biology is committed to continuing to evolve to use the best possible new tools and technologies, to make the process of publishing as painless as possible for authors and peerreviewers."

"It has been really exciting to witness Journal of Biology's development during its first year of publication. As well as the buzz of working with great scientists in a wide variety of cutting-edge research fields, the whole team is really relishing the opportunity to build a flagship journal. The Open Access movement as a whole is at present receiving a tremendous boost from new and existing activities, and the coming year promises to be at least as exciting as the last - if not more so."

jbiol.com
www.biomedcentral.com

"We are all trying to be catalysts for change"

Vivian Siegel

Vivian Siegel, PhD, is the Executive Director at the Public Library of Science. Before joining PLoS, Siegel was the editor of Cell. A graduate of Bowdoin College, she received her PhD in genetics from the Department of Biochemistry and Biophysics of the University of California, San Francisco, and worked at Cell for five years before being promoted to the top editorial position in 1999. Open Access Now talked to Vivian about her new job.

Why did you choose to leave Cell?

"I had become interested in opening up access to the literature over the last several years. It became clear to me that that would be very difficult to do from within Cell Press. I felt that in the long term Open Access is inevitable and I wanted to be a part of that transition. The goal of a journal is to find and publish the best science out there - how to get good papers, how to recognize good papers and how to publish good papers. These are not necessarily the goals of large corporate publishers who are most interested in maximizing profits. I found it increasingly hard to reconcile these competing demands. It came to a head over the issues of Open Access."

How did you come to PLoS?

"When PLoS decided to launch journals they approached me and it was a good match - I had the background that they felt was important to get the project taken seriously and I really believed in the underlying principles behind it. I wanted to be in a position where I could act according to my principles and speak honestly about the things I care about... I have always been motivated by the desire to be doing something good. That's what brought me into biomedical science to begin with and then drove me into an editing career where I felt that I could use my talents to help scientists in different disciplines publish the very best work they could. And that's what drove me here. Probably for the first time I feel every day that I get up that I am working for something I believe in. And that's important for me."

What are the challenges of recruiting papers for a new journal?

"Recruiting papers for PLoS Biology is going pretty well. We have some very good papers that are coming through the pipeline. Each recruitment is much more of an effort than it was at Cell. But one of the reasons that we have a reasonably large staff at PLoS Biology is to give us the time to have those multiple hour-long conversations with people who are trying to balance the reservations they might have about publishing in a brand new journal with the benefit that they and the community would gain by making that decision. The first papers come from people who share our ideals and passionately believe that it's the right thing to do. These authors have confidence in themselves and their work and realize that if work is really good it doesn't need the prestige of a journal to be recognized. They recognize that the real risk is much smaller than the perceived risk of doing something new - and get a thrill out of doing something that can make a difference, not just to their own personal careers but to science as a whole. It's great to work with those people and see the excitement that they get out of participating in this project."

What makes PLoS Biology different from other journals?

"Our goal is to have a journal of the highest possible profile. But we hope our standards will be based on the science and not other subjective factors. The challenge of a good editor is to become as well-versed as possible in the different areas so that they know when to get excited about a paper in a specific field. PLoS editors work very closely with academic editors. PLoS is attempting to formalize the best possible working relationship, which sometimes exists informally at other journals, so that every decision about a paper is a shared decision. This process involves a professional editor who has experience in issues such as consistency and objectivity, coupled with an academic editor who really understands that field deeply and can recognize when a discovery is long sought-after advance for the field. Our goal is to couple those two people to be as constructive as possible to choose papers that should be read by everybody. This is a shared discussion - we will never reject a paper without including an academic editor. The communication challenges around explaining why that paper is interesting must be met by the authors and the editors, but it should not by itself be a criterion for publication. I think that distinguishes us from the existing high-profile journals [where the burden of proof lies with the author convincing the editor that the article is interesting]."

"Our goal is to develop our reputation and keep things similar to what people recognize and value. There are currently several high-profile journals published by conventional publishers. There is certainly room for many Open Access journals - the world doesn't have enough of them now. The more of us who are out there talking actively with the scientific community about why it's such an important issue and why they should contribute their work, the faster it will happen. We are all trying to be catalysts for change."

www.plosbiology.org
www.plos.org