PeerJ—What Does It Mean for Paleontology?

For those following open access issues, the arrival of PeerJ has been hotly anticipated (see this link round-up). We all knew Pete Binfield--someone with years of experience in academic publishing and, until recently, publisher of PLoS ONE--was associated with the project, so it wasn't likely to be a half-baked scheme. The big day of announcement finally arrived yesterday, and things look even more innovative than expected. So, what does this mean for us paleontologists?

First, a little background on PeerJ. It's a new journal, falling squarely in the online and open access (CC-BY) categories. Editorial criteria are similar to those for PLoS ONE (scientific and methodological soundness count; perceived impact or splashiness don't). All of this is pretty typical; but the rest ain't.

Innovation
One of the most common fears of open access publishing is that it can cost a lot of money for authors, a particularly big concern in an underfunded field like paleontology. Free open access journals (like Palaeontologia Electronica) and fee waivers (as for PLoS ONE) can fill the gaps, but most mandatory open access fees are otherwise unaffordable for the typical paleontology lab budget (assuming there is a budget for the lab). PeerJ attempts to fill in this gap, while paying for the costs of open access. Things get pretty interesting as a result.

The conventional open access model is to pay per publication; once a paper is accepted, you pay the $2,000 or $1,350 or whatever to subsidize production costs. PeerJ front-loads this in a unique way; each author pays a one-time membership fee, which is then good for life! Depending on what category of membership you buy, you then can publish one, two, or an unlimited number of publications yearly. These lifetime membership fees are quite reasonable, too. They start at $99, and culminate at $259 (fees go up slightly after September 1). Fee waivers are available for those in developing countries.

So what's the catch? Members are expected to review one paper yearly (either as a full-blown peer reviewer, or as a post-publication commenter). Additionally, each author on a paper (up to the twelfth author) must be a member. How does that translate financially? Let's say I want to publish a paper, and have three co-authors. Assuming each of us is only publishing in PeerJ once a year, that translates to $99 per person. With four total authors, the cost is $396. If one of my co-authors and I later publish another paper, the cost for that one is $0. Same cost for the third paper. That's three open access articles for $132 each. This is definitely an encouragement to continue publishing with PeerJ.

Other good things
PeerJ is pretty savvy, and has covered its electronic bases (see their FAQ). The journal will be edited by an independent academic editorial board, an author's membership category doesn't factor into decisions, and content is archived via CLOCKSS. The journal has plans to get an impact factor (which will take three years) and to get indexed in the major services. These are all carefully thought-out, and within (or exceeding) professional standards for publishing.

As another incentive, PeerJ offers a preprint service (free if you only post one a year). Physicists have arXiv, where they can post unpublished manuscripts for community commentary. However, there isn't really such a central repository for the biosciences (especially since the demise of Nature Precedings). Thus, PeerJ is filling a community need (even if we paleontologists don't yet realize the advantages of preprints).

What's needed now?
This journal is surely within the realm of interest for paleontologists, and those of us who support open access publishing will follow it pretty closely. Because the journal has yet to officially launch, some details are still hazy. In order to be of maximum use to paleontologists, I hope to see the following things (in roughly ascending order of difficulty):

• Clear guidelines for nomenclatural acts. These should follow recommendations from the ICZN and ensure that any new species erected within PeerJ are valid.
• A clearly designed, paleontology-specific ethics policy. Standards should be in line with those used by organizations such as the Paleontological Society and Society of Vertebrate Paleontology, and ideally would mandate that all specimens discussed in PeerJ are reposited in appropriate institutions. The last thing the journal needs is to be filled with papers on illegal Chinese specimens or thinly-veiled advertisements for fossils on the commercial market.
• A strong editorial board with a respected paleontologist (or paleontologists). In order to get community buy-in, we need to see that the person who handles our manuscripts is qualified, trustworthy, and fair. Paleontologists are also rather skittish; we won't publish in a new venue unless someone else tests the waters first (judging by the pattern in PLoS ONE).
• Strong impact factor and community perception. We all hate impact factors (or at least say we do, right before hitting the submit button on that article for Nature which we know will be rejected but hey we have to try anyhow just in case), but it's sadly a reality for those who want to get jobs and grants. Early-career scientists are likely to be a little wary of submitting their very top stuff to PeerJ, at least until the journal is a little more established. It sucks for the researchers and for the journal, but that's just the way it is. PLoS ONE faced a similar hurdle (and still does, to some degree), and only time can defeat it. Positive word-of-mouth will also help immensely.

Given the experience of the staff at PeerJ with academic publishing, I have all confidence that these issues will be addressed when the formal editorial guidelines are announced. Open access is changing the way paleontologists do business; whether directly or by influencing other publishers, PeerJ will surely push that change a little more in the right direction.

Open Access in the UK - Comment Now!

The Research Councils UK (an umbrella organization overseeing much of the public scientific funding in that country, as well as funding for the arts and other worthy ventures) is soliciting comments on a new open access policy [PDF]. No matter what your opinion on open access, please comment. Mike Taylor, writing at SV-POW!, has further information and instructions.

Even if you don't live in the UK, it is worth letting the Research Councils know how you feel about the policy. Why? Because science (and scientific publishing) is inherently an international endeavo(u)r. I collaborate with colleagues in the UK all of the time, and many of the best papers I read these days have their origin across the pond. But, as with most scientific literature, access sometimes ain't easy. A more open scientific literature helps all of us, and each accessible paper raises the country's profile in the scientific community. Funding agencies always want more bang for their buck (or pound), and improving accessibility is one great way to do that.

So, drop a line to communications@rcuk.ac.uk by April 10 and use the subject "Open Access Feedback." Even a short sentence of support will do. Or three short sentences, as I did (basically using the argument in the paragraph above). Make your voice heard!

Self-archival: a good start, but not the full solution

We all want our work to be discovered, read and cited. There is little doubt that closed access systems hamper this - a paywall to an article is a hefty obstacle, and we all encounter them at least occasionally no matter how extensive our library access is. From an author's perspective, freely-available PDFs of their work are a major boost.

In recent discussions on Twitter and in the blogosphere, I've chatted with Mike Taylor, Ross Mounce, and others about self-archival as one of many mechanisms to bring about open access. Mike's recent blog post at SV-POW! summarizes much of the discussion to date, and I thank him for helping me to crystalize my thoughts on the topic.

For those who are not familiar with the term, self-archival refers to placing a freely-downloadable copy of a publication (or other work) on one's personal (or departmental, or whatever) web page. In this post, I want to discuss the pros and cons of such an approach.

Pros

• The PDF is freely available to anyone who wants to see it. No paywalls. No hassle.
• Once picked up by search engines, your posting may be the first one web users find - even above the "official" journal page!
• If users browse your website with the PDF, it means that they might discover closely-related work. This can be a big plus for getting the word out about your research program. 

Cautions

• A personal archive is probably not a permanent archive. Barring special arrangements, your personal or institutional web page is not likely to last substantively beyond your lifetime. Free hosting services such as WordPress may not be around in 20 years (remember Geocities?), so it may be worthwhile to pay for hosting. And make sure your descendents pay for hosting, or that your departmental web administrator doesn't delete your page 15 years after you retire. I have little faith that the PDFs I post on my own web page will be around 200 years from now, at least at that website. That sure would stink for that researcher in 2212, who wants to read all about ceratopsian sinuses.
• Author-hosted archives are not independent. There is nothing to prevent someone from removing embarrassing details or adding fraudulent information to their publications, and little that a casual reader can do to detect such fraud. The great majority of academic authors are honest - it's that tiny minority we have to watch out for. An independent archive, hosted by an institution, library, or publisher, provides a firewall protecting the literature from the authors.
• As article-level metrics gain prominence, author-hosted PDFs may skew some statistics. For instance, let's say I publish a paper in PLoS ONE, and also post a copy of the PDF to my site. Because PLoS ONE records and posts view and download statistics for its own site, any downloads or views from my site are not recorded there. Thus, the statistics are spread across several venues. This is not a major issue in my opinion, but some people may care.
• Under the terms of publication, a publisher may not allow you to post a PDF of your paper. Or, they may only allow you to post a pre-review copy. Or a post-review, unformatted copy. Things get complicated quickly, especially for those concerned about following the letter of the law.

The Up-Shot
If you are active researcher, you should be posting whatever PDFs of your own work that you (legally) can.  If you don't, you're missing out on innumerable opportunities to publicize your work and interact with colleagues. However, personal archiving is not enough to ensure permanence. For the long-term, a bigger solution is needed. Institutional archives, journal archives, society archives, whatever. The ultimate answer may take some time to sort itself out.

PLoS ONE 2011 - Final Round-Up

Back before the new year, I reviewed all 17 of the new fossil taxa that were published in PLoS ONE during 2011. Here, I look at the general trends for paleontology in the journal, both last year and over its entire history.

Topics and Biases

Paleontological Topics in PLoS ONE, 2011

The chart above shows the general topics covered by PLoS ONE papers in paleontology during 2011 (for those of you adding the numbers, a handful were counted in two categories). Just as for new taxa, there is a major skew towards archosaurs. Much as I love dinosaurs, we really need to get a broader diversity of taxonomic coverage. Part of this is probably the result of different cultures of publishing among different groups of specialists - dinosaur workers are comfortable with PLoS ONE, whereas trilobite workers aren't. We need some pioneers in invertebrate paleontology, paleoicthyology, and elsewhere.

The Big Picture
By my count, there were around 65 paleontology-related articles published in PLoS ONE last year (2011). This is up from 39 articles in 2010, and reflects a continuing increase since PLoS ONE was founded in 2006.

Trends in Number of Paleontology Papers at PLoS ONE

Compare this count of 65 for PLoS ONE with 95 papers in Journal of Paleontology and 120 papers in Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology during 2011. PLoS ONE is still smaller than some "conventional" journals, but I think it is safe to say that it may overtake these alternatives in annual volume within the next year or two. Whether or not this is a good thing for PLoS ONE and paleontology is another question - if the quality of the papers submitted to the journal as well as the editing process can be maintained (or improved where necessary), perhaps yes.

Many paleontologists clearly are warming up to the idea of PLoS ONE. It is tough to know what factors are behind this - whether it's availability of high-resolution color figures, cost-effective outlets for lengthy papers, frustration with "conventional" journals, the impact factor, broader acceptance of open access, or something else altogether. Other paleontology journals - and paleontological societies that publish their own journals - would be wise to see what they can do to match or improve upon the attractive points of PLoS ONE. As much as I love PLoS ONE, the last thing I want is a publishing monoculture. Unless others journals adapt, though, this may be the result.

The oldest Eucalyptus in the world - from South America! Modified after Gandalfo et al., 2011

[note: although I am a volunteer editor at the journal, this post reflects only my personal opinions]

Should we review for any old journal?

It's no secret that academic publishers are able to cut expenses by getting free content, free review, and often free editorial expertise from the scientific community. Web hosting, copy editing, and printing costs remain, of course, so publishers cover these expenses by charging for the content - often by charging subscription and article access fees (directly or indirectly) to the very same researchers who provide their expertise for free. When some commercial publishers are generating impressive profits in spite of the bad economy, many researchers are rightfully perturbed. How should we, as a research community, respond?

Mike Taylor, writing at SV-POW! and Times Higher Education, argues that (among other strategies) scientists should refuse to review manuscripts submitted to non-open publications. To his credit, he has put his money where his mouth is (no surprise to those who know how solid Mike's character is). If done by enough people, this will surely have the desired effect of slowing down the cogs of the big non-open access journals (and making open access [OA] a more appealing alternative). But, what is the collateral damage? Is it worth it? Who would even receive the message?

I argue that, unless carefully constructed, such reviewing boycotts may never be noticed by some of the concerned parties. A typical journal editor will think "oh, Reviewer 1 refused to review. . .on to Reviewer 2." Even if the refusal to review is accompanied by a note explaining the reasoning behind the refusal, only the editor will ever see it (and potentially the publishing admins - who have little vested interest in changing the status quo).

Second, when the pool of qualified reviewers is small to begin with, this could have the consequence of letting some really bad stuff slip into publication. I've reviewed enough papers and read enough literature to know that unless I flag some manuscripts, nobody else will. (Richard has a similar sentiment in his comments at SV-POW!). Despite the schadenfreude of seeing non-OA journals become associated with increasingly substandard work, it would also mean that we're left with a mess to clean up (particularly in the case of "new" species). Profits are reported quarterly, but we have to deal with crummy taxonomy forever.

Third, the journals are not the ones hurt most directly by review boycotts; it is the authors. The journal will almost always find someone else to review the paper (with a delay as these reviewers are recruited); and if not, the manuscript will be returned for lack of qualified reviewers (with a delay as the paper is prepared for submission elsewhere). Rightly or wrongly, publications are a primary currency of academia. If getting that publication delayed means my friend or colleague doesn't get a job, or a grant, or tenure, I have hurt them, not just the profits of the journal.

There are some constructive alternatives, fortunately - given a choice, I would say #2 and #3 have the most utility and best balance intended and unintended consequences.

1) Refuse to review the paper, but fully explain why in a letter submitted directly and separately to the editor, journal, and authors. This way everyone gets the message - not just a select few.

2) Review the paper, but include a message with the review (perhaps both in the review text and in a direct letter to the authors) on the shame of the work being locked behind a paywall. Make the authors think twice about whether or not the intended audience will ever see the paper.

3) Submit your own work to open access journals, cite work in open access journals, and encourage your colleagues to do the same.

I sympathize with the sentiment that we academics shouldn't be propping up the questionable practices of some publishers, but we also need to avoid shooting ourselves (and our colleagues) in the foot as a result.

Update: Mike Taylor has posted a response to this post at SV-POW!

Paleontology Journals - Cheers and Jeers

In my previous post, I introduced a compilation of data concerning various journals relevant to paleontologists. The data, which are freely available in Google Spreadsheet, Excel and HTML form, detail costs to readers, costs to authors, and more. In this post, I want to outline my personal opinions on the journals that I surveyed. Which have good policies for authors and readers, and which need some work? The answers may surprise you; they certainly surprised me. Some of the best-known journals in the field are not necessarily the best for those who need to use them.

A disclaimer: The opinions presented here are my own and do not represent any organization with which I am associated. Any critical comments are directed at the publishing practices of the journals, not the quality of the science or the efforts of the volunteer editors, authors, and reviewers. If I have made an error in compiling a journal information, I will happily correct it upon notification and verification. I have published in, and in some cases will continue to publish in, some of the journals of which I am critical. Although I personally would like to publish only in open access, non-profit journals, the realities of a career in science make that difficult at times.

Cheers to:

• Journals that promote open access. Even with a delay, open access allows an increased readership (and hopefully increased citation) of articles. Although critics of OA often imply that scientific papers are just too complex for the lay public to understand, in a field like paleontology the lay public is a major consumer of our primary literature. So, cheers to journals like PLoS ONE, Palaeontologia Electronica, and Proceedings B, who practice and promote open access. Even some commercially-published journals (e.g., The Anatomical Record) deserve special mention for their OA efforts.
• Journals with reasonable download fees. Although every journal would be free and open access in an ideal world, it does cost money to run a publication. I salute those journals of various sizes and business models that keep their per-article download charges at $15 or less; this includes Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Journal of Paleontology, Paleobiology, PNAS, and Science. Here's your next challenge, journals: lower the price to $5. I would predict that this is the tipping point in the balance between price and convenience for many readers of the paleontology literature.
  

Jeers to:

• Journals that charge ridiculous fees for per-article downloads. I'm especially looking at you, Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. $41 for a PDF of a one page taxonomic note?! Not even Cretaceous Research, owned and published by the oft-maligned Elsevier, charges that much ($37.95). Somehow or another, Journal of Paleontology only charges $12 per article. I realize that different journals have different goals and revenue streams, but it is absolutely unseemly that a society journal like JVP charges that much for its articles. One wonders how many potential purchases (and thus society revenue) are lost in the face of the fee.
• Journals that only allow authors to publish the pre-peer reviewed version of a manuscript. Journal of Morphology and The Anatomical Record get this dubious honor. I can understand asking authors to delay posting the unformatted manuscript or to refrain from posting the published PDF (to allow the journal to recoup some revenue), but it makes no sense to prevent entirely the authors from posting the peer-reviewed, unformatted version. Given the sometimes substantial changes introduced during peer review (which is done by volunteers, and nearly always coordinated by volunteer editors), posting of an unreviewed manuscript has too much potential for making the author as well as the journal look bad. The Journal of Morphology is a particularly egregious offender. I feel a little bad listing The Anatomical Record in this category, because they do have default OA after one year.
• Journals that lock supplementary information behind paywalls. Erecting paywalls for supplementary information may, in some cases, keep the data out of sight of legal readers. Someone who has only a paper reprint or PDF of the printed work legally obtained from the author, or a hard copy in the journal library, cannot access supplementary data. Keep in mind that most journals only minimally format the data, if at all, for publication, so there is no real value added by the publisher beyond posting it on the server. Prime offenders in this category include Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Canadian Journal of Earth Sciences, Historical Biology, and Cretaceous Research.
  

Top contenders in various categories:

• Most reader friendly. Criteria: Cost of download, time to OA. Top picks: Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, Palaeontologia Electronica, PLoS ONE, PalArch's JVP. Runners up: PNAS, Science.
• Least reader friendly. Criteria: cost of download, availability of supplementary information, availability of open access and/or author versions. Bottom picks: Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, Historical Biology, Cretaceous Research.
• Most author friendly. Criteria: OA fee and/or fee waiver, maintenance of author rights, impact factor. Top picks: Acta Palaeontologica Polonica, Palaeontologia Electronica. Good bets: PLoS ONE, PalArch's JVP.
• Best all-around journals: These journals balance needs of the author and reader, using the criteria above. In this case, Acta Palaeontologica Polonica and Palaeontologia Electronica are at the top of the list.
• Best Glamour Magazine: Science, by a long-shot. With the high impact factor that authors crave, and the low download fee and eventual open access that readers love, this journal has the entire package. PNAS is a very close runner-up.

*I would note that PaleoBios may be making some additional changes to propel themselves into the "best all-around journal" category; details will be added when available.
**I would also note that by "readers", I am referring to all possible readers, not just those with society memberships or at institutions with well-stocked electronic libraries.

So Now What?
Vote with your manuscript submissions. Submit only to journals whose policies benefit you. Encourage journals with non-friendly policies to change them. Although it may be tough to change strictly for-profit journals, we may be able to make a difference with society publications. Speak up. Blog about it. Talk to your colleagues. Ask the hard questions of the people who make the decisions. Make a noise at the annual meetings. Let's even the publishing playing field!

Update: Heinrich Mallison posted a nice response to the selection of Palaeontologia Electronica as one of the "best all-around journals" for paleontology, over at their official blog.

What are your thoughts? Weigh in with your own nominations for best/worst, or any additional opinions, in the comment section!

Paleontology Journals - Policies, Costs, and Accessibility

When preparing to submit a paper for publication, journal choice is critical. Numerous factors play into the decision (distribution, audience, accessibility, and cost, just to name a few), as has been outlined in wonderful detail elsewhere. As I advance in my own research career, publisher behavior has become more important to me. Does the publisher of the journal to which I am submitting my manuscript conduct its business in a manner consistent with my own personal ethics? Who will have access to my research, and how much will it cost them? This is a tough question to sort out, and in reality there are no perfect players. However, in order to make this decision just a little easier, I assembled data about a number of journals relevant to my own research program.

The full data are posted on a freely-accessible Google spreadsheet, and this post explains each of the categories I recorded. Although I have a personal bias towards open access, I have attempted to present the data in the spreadsheet without commentary. Every person will have his or her own opinion about which factors matter most to him or her. In a follow-up post, I will provide my own opinions on which journals are "best". For now, please make up your own mind.

Categories

• Title: self explanatory
• Publisher / Distributor: This category indicates which organization distributes the journal; this may be the same as the sponsor of the journal, or the work may be contracted to an outside organization.
• Publisher Status: Is the publisher a non-profit or for-profit entity? Some non-profit organizations publish their journals with a for-profit publisher, and some journals are purely non-profit or for-profit.
• Sponsor: As alluded to above, some journals are ultimately coordinated by a scientific society. I understand that some scientific societies receive a portion of the profits from the for-profit publishers, so a journal published by a for-profit entity may not always be a net loss for scientific funding. However, I would caution that no data are available on what percentage of revenue actually reverts to societies.
• OA (Open Access) Default: Some journals automatically post all articles as open access (either immediately or with a delay; indicated as "Yes" on the spreadsheet). Others have open access options only if the authors pay an extra fee (indicated as "No" on the spreadsheet).
• Time to OA: Some OA journals (e.g., PNAS) have closed access for a set period of time (usually one year), and then automatically open the archives.
• OA Fee & OA Fee Waiver: Most journals, even those that are not entirely OA, require a fee for open access. The fee varies from free (e.g., Acta Palaeontologica Polonica) to $3,250 (Historical Biology). In some cases (e.g., PLoS ONE) a fee waiver is available. For delayed OA journals (e.g., PNAS), the fee allows immediate OA posting of the article, rather than free OA after a set amount of time.
  
• Download Fee: Delayed OA or non-OA journals require that non-subscribers (or those who do not have institutional access) pay a per-article charge. Within paleontology-focused journals, the cheapest is Journal of Paleontology ($12), and the most expensive are Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology and Historical Biology ($41).
• Free Supplementary Data: Increasingly, authors rely on supplementary data to publish and disseminate the measurements, cladistic tables, etc., supporting their papers. Most journals allow non-subscribers to access supplementary data; others (e.g., JVP and Cretaceous Research) require purchase of the entire article (even if the user already has obtained a legal copy as a physical reprint or PDF from the author).
• IF: The "Impact Factor", the most "standard" (if opaque) form of which is calculated by Thomson Reuters, is a measure of the extent to which the articles within a journal are cited. Although this metric is often criticized, it is still an important consideration for many authors, and is thus included here.
• Primarily Paleo?: In assembling this list, not all of the included journals are strictly paleontology-focused (e.g., Proceedings B, Nature). However, because they frequently include paleontology content, I felt it useful to include them.
• Author Rights: Publishers vary greatly in the rights that are left in the hands of the authors. Although copyright issues are certainly important (i.e., whether the copyright remains with the author, or is transferred to a commercial publisher or professional society), here I focused on what the authors are allowed to do with their own work in the context of a personal (or institutional) web page. In some cases, the authors may post the final published PDF; in others, the authors may only post the unformatted text. In the most restrictive case (as mandated by the journal Geology), authors are not allowed to post any version of the article.

All information was drawn from the official web pages for the various journals; any errors are unintentional but possible, due either to my own misinterpretation or updated journal policies. If you find any mistakes, please let me know, and I will do my best to correct them. This list is not intended to be exhaustive by any means; instead, it focuses on the journals of most personal interest.

See the Data:
To view the spreadsheet, you can see the freely-available Google Spreadsheet, or an Excel spreadsheet, or this web page.

Coming up: Which journals do I think deserve applause for their policies?

A Flood of Paleo Articles in PLoS ONE

It has been pretty incredible to see the rise of PLoS ONE as a major outlet for articles on paleontology, and it has been equally incredible to ride along as an editor for that journal. The past few months have seen many scientifically important and interesting papers wend their way into publication. I haven't had a lot of time for blogging lately, but wanted to take this opportunity to highlight the latest paleo-themed research in PLoS ONE. The following list is in reverse chronological order (newest to oldest), covering work published in the last three months.

********************

Slater GJ, Figueirido B, Louis L, Yang P, Van Valkenburgh B (2010) Biomechanical Consequences of Rapid Evolution in the Polar Bear Lineage. PLoS ONE 5(11): e13870. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013870
Summary: The authors present and interpret finite element modeling results for polar bears and brown bears, showing that the skulls of polar bears are generally weaker than those of their close cousins. Furthermore, these differences probably accumulated rather rapidly.

Xu X, Wang K, Zhao X, Sullivan C, Chen S (2010) A New Leptoceratopsid (Ornithischia: Ceratopsia) from the Upper Cretaceous of Shandong, China and Its Implications for Neoceratopsian Evolution. PLoS ONE 5(11): e13835. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013835
Summary: Zhuchengceratops inexpectus is introduced; this small horned dinosaur is actually among the largest of its kind, the "leptoceratopsids." Interestingly, it showed up in a big bonebed in eastern China, along with truly giant horned dinosaurs and duck-billed dinosaurs.

Longrich NR, Horner JR, Erickson GM, Currie PJ (2010) Cannibalism in Tyrannosaurus rex. PLoS ONE 5(10): e13419. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013419
Summary: Bones of Tyrannosaurus with T. rex tooth marks are described; the implications are pretty self-evident (see the title of the paper, if you're still trying to figure this out). This paper received considerable media attention; Brian Switek has one nice write-up at Dinosaur Tracking.

Cisneros JC, Gomes Cabral U, de Beer F, Damiani R, Costa Fortier D (2010) Spondarthritis in the Triassic. PLoS ONE 5(10): e13425. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013425
Summary: Suffering from what is described as the earliest known example of arthritis, an early archosaur had a pretty rough time with some fused vertebrae. Diagnoses of disease in fossil organisms can be pretty controversial; I shall be interested to see how this particular case study plays out.

Smith ND (2010) Phylogenetic Analysis of Pelecaniformes (Aves) Based on Osteological Data: Implications for Waterbird Phylogeny and Fossil Calibration Studies. PLoS ONE 5(10): e13354. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013354
Summary: Here, the relationships of pelecaniform birds (including pelicans, cormorants, boobies, and more) is addressed in great detail. The group is not found to be monophyletic, and the unstable nature of the position of several key taxa means that ornithologists will be talking about this question for some time.

Han J, Kubota S, Uchida H-o, Stanley GD Jr, Yao X, et al. (2010) Tiny Sea Anemone from the Lower Cambrian of China. PLoS ONE 5(10): e13276. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013276
Summary: What the title says. The authors suggest that their new animal, called Eolympia pediculata, is a stem member of the group including corals and sea anemones. The image at right shows the authors' reconstruction of Eolympia.

Peterson JE, Lenczewski ME, Scherer RP (2010) Influence of Microbial Biofilms on the Preservation of Primary Soft Tissue in Fossil and Extant Archosaurs. PLoS ONE 5(10): e13334. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013334
Summary: This article presents experimental support for the idea that microbial biofilms form a protective layer that allows preservation of deeper soft tissue structures in dinosaur bones and other fossils-to-be. Read more about the research here. Interestingly, the article by Peterson et al. disagrees with an earlier paper published in PLoS ONE (written by Kaye et al.), stating that any alleged soft tissue preserved in fossils is a microbial film alone. Thus, the bacterial biofilms exist - but they're not the only biogenic structure in these bones!

Holliday CM, Ridgely RC, Sedlmayr JC, Witmer LM (2010) Cartilaginous Epiphyses in Extant Archosaurs and Their Implications for Reconstructing Limb Function in Dinosaurs. PLoS ONE 5(9): e13120. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013120
Summary: Things aren't as they appear; the big dinosaur bones that we see in museums today were probably much longer in life, supplemented by giant cartilaginous caps. Lead author Casey Holliday presents more information here, and Mike Taylor at SV-POW also has stuff to say about the topic.

Oxnard C, Obendorf PJ, Kefford BJ (2010) Post-Cranial Skeletons of Hypothyroid Cretins Show a Similar Anatomical Mosaic as Homo floresiensis. PLoS ONE 5(9): e13018. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0013018
Summary: Yet another round in the discussion about the "hobbits" of Flores, Indonesia. I get the sense that Oxnard et al. are very much in the minority opinion, but I also get the sense that this debate is going to drag on for awhile more.

Rando JC, Alcover JA, Illera JC (2010) Disentangling Ancient Interactions: A New Extinct Passerine Provides Insights on Character Displacement among Extinct and Extant Island Finches. PLoS ONE 5(9): e12956. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012956
Summary: A recently extinct finch, Carduelis aurelioi, is named and compared with its fellow prehistoric finches (some of which are still alive today). Evidence is presented to suggest that the effects of ancient competition between the species still reverberate today. The image at left shows a life restoration of the new species, as imagined by A. Bonner.

O'Rourke CT, Hall MI, Pitlik T, Fernández-Juricic E (2010) Hawk Eyes I: Diurnal Raptors Differ in Visual Fields and Degree of Eye Movement. PLoS ONE 5(9): e12802. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012802
Summary: It's not strictly paleontology, but the methods here present actual experimental validation of the true visual fields for extant birds of prey. It would be interesting to compare the visual fields as calculated from the osteology alone with the experimental results - and then see what this means for similar calculations performed for extinct dinosaurs.

Sampson SD, Loewen MA, Farke AA, Roberts EM, Forster CA, et al. (2010) New Horned Dinosaurs from Utah Provide Evidence for Intracontinental Dinosaur Endemism. PLoS ONE 5(9): e12292. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012292
Summary: Utahceratops gettyi and Kosmoceratops richardsoni, two new horned dinosaurs, are named, and their implications for Late Cretaceous biogeography in North America are discussed. This paper, on which I was a co-author, received a substantial amount of media attention. See my blog post on the subject as a starting point for more information.

Kraatz BP, Meng J, Weksler M, Li C (2010) Evolutionary Patterns in the Dentition of Duplicidentata (Mammalia) and a Novel Trend in the Molarization of Premolars. PLoS ONE 5(9): e12838. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012838
Summary: Here, the authors propose new ways to interpret the anatomy and evolution of rabbit teeth, based on some previously undescribed fossils.

Noto CR, Grossman A (2010) Broad-Scale Patterns of Late Jurassic Dinosaur Paleoecology. PLoS ONE 5(9): e12553. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0012553
Summary: The Jurassic was an age of giants. The structure of some old, old ecosystems is reconstructed by classifying and comparing the ecomorphotypes of a number of dinosaurs from this time.

Degrange FJ, Tambussi CP, Moreno K, Witmer LM, Wroe S (2010) Mechanical Analysis of Feeding Behavior in the Extinct “Terror Bird” Andalgalornis steulleti (Gruiformes: Phorusrhacidae). PLoS ONE 5(8): e11856. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011856
Summary: Terror birds are pretty much what the name says - imagine something the size of "Big Bird" from Sesame Street, preying on Mr. Snuffleupagus. This article, which also received broad media coverage (see the Witmer Lab blog as a starting point), finds that the skulls of these big birds were quite strong in the up-and-down direction, but not so strong from side-to-side.

Lindgren J, Caldwell MW, Konishi T, Chiappe LM (2010) Convergent Evolution in Aquatic Tetrapods: Insights from an Exceptional Fossil Mosasaur. PLoS ONE 5(8): e11998. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0011998
Summary: A spectacularly-preserved ancient sea reptile shows skin impressions, bronchial tubes, possible skin coloration, and even potential traces of some internal organs. Feathered dinosaurs may get all of the attention, but the specimen described here rivals them in "wow" factor!

Image from Lindgren et al. 2010

********************

Some parting thoughts:

• In my (biased) opinion, most of these papers are presenting some pretty solid science (or at the very least, stimulating science). Now that PLoS ONE has an impact factor (and thus presumably more people interested in submitting to the journal), I hope that the quality of the submitted work is maintained.
• There is a pretty major skew towards papers on vertebrates - 15 out of 16 (94 percent) of those mentioned above primarily concern things with backbones . Six out of the 16 papers mentioned above (38 percent) are about non-avian dinosaurs. Let's get some more variety, folks!
• Some interesting work on functional morphology and other aspects of evolutionary biology (only a handful of which are sampled above) has been appearing lately. I strongly recommend subscribing to content alerts (start the process here) or regularly browsing the journal's website, in order to keep up on the latest and greatest work that might be relevant to you.
  
• I look forward to more stimulating papers appearing in the near future. And if you haven't submitted something to PLoS ONE yet, please consider doing so!

Full disclosure: I am a section editor at PLoS ONE.

Return to the Blogosphere

I'm back! Let's just say that a global circumnavigation, two months away from home, and a move in the middle, don't leave a lot of time for blogging. It was a fun and productive summer, but now it's time to settle back in for the fall.

For this re-inaugural post, I wanted to touch on a few highlights from the past few months, particularly in the world of open access and paleo research. I'll cover a variety of topics in more detail in future posts, hopefully.

Big Happenings at PLoS ONE

The online, freely accessible journal PLoS ONE hit a variety of important milestones this summer, including:

• For the first time, the journal received an official impact factor from Thompson-Reuters. The result: a respectable 4.351. Although this value certainly exceeds that for your typical paleontology journal (e.g., Paleobiology has an IF of 2.985, and JVP has an IF of 2.536), it is more properly compared to other general interest journals. For instance, Naturwissenschaften has an IF of 2.126 and Proceedings B an IF of 4.857. Thus, PLoS ONE is doing pretty well in the whole impact factor "game." Although impact factor has come under a lot of fire lately, we still face the reality that many scientists need to publish in journals that have an IF. Thus, the assignment of an official IF is a big step forward for the journal.
  
• PLoS ONE launched a new (and hopefully more user friendly) manuscript submission system. Read all about it here.
• PLoS launched a new blog network.
• Full disclosure: I am a section editor at PLoS ONE.

Happenings Around the Blogosphere

• The venerable ScienceBlogs had a major sea change, with a number of respected bloggers jumping ship. I'm still working on updating my personal blog feeds. But, don't forget that notables such as Tetrapod Zoology remain!
• WitmerLab launched a great new blog, chock full of goodies from all of the folks there.
• The spam filters at Blogger are horrible. I'm seriously considering transferring over to WordPress.
  

Research Happenings

• The long-awaited proceedings volume of the Tyrrell ceratopsian symposium is finally out. The first review, by Hans-Dieter Sues, is available here. Seriously, if you are a dinosaur enthusiast or researcher, you need to get a copy of this book (and no, I don't get royalties).
  
• The final unpublished chapter of my dissertation (on ceratopsian sinuses) is now officially in press - look for it to come out in JVP within the next few weeks!
• Another major paper should be out in two weeks. Stay tuned for details.
• I had my first publishing experience with PalArch's Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology, with a paper on dinosaur skin from Utah. Brian Switek had a nice write-up of this over at Dinosaur Tracking. Hopefully I'll have a chance to blog more about this later - for now, I'll just say that you should consider the journal as a publishing venue! In the meantime, you can learn more about the journal in this two-part interview with editor Brian Beatty.
  
• And much more. . .too much to mention here, in fact!

That is all for now.

Interview: Ricardo Araújo on Journal of Paleontological Techniques

Fossil preparators are the unsung heroes of paleontology. For every paper on a spectacular Archaeopteryx skeleton, or an exquisite new ceratopsian skull, there is at least one talented preparator who freed the fossil from its rocky tomb. Despite the importance of preparators for paleontology, there are surprisingly few formal publications devoted to the trade (beyond the occasional symposium volume). Even rarer are open access publications on fossil preparation. Thus, it is a real pleasure to share this interview with Ricardo Araújo, the executive editor for Journal of Paleontological Techniques.

Tell us a little about Journal of Paleontological Techniques. How did the journal get started?
The Journal of Paleontological Techniques got started due to the difficulties that we felt in the Museu da Lourinha (in Portugal) to get access information relative to preparation. Unfortunately it is extremely hard for a peripheral country to have access to the know-how developed in the great centers of knowledge, namely central Europe and the US. So, we had to find an economical way without detriment of scientific rigor; publishing and editing articles using an open access philosophy seemed the right solution. Furthermore, the lack of a systematic compilation of paleontological techniques is evident in the literature.

What makes Journal of Paleontological Techniques unique?
There are a few things that make our journal unique:

1. There is no other journal focused on the practical side of paleontology. Some typical paleontological journals publish sporadically on paleontological techniques, and there are a handful of printed publications. However, there is an immense quantity of knowledge acquired by generations of preparators that is hard to access if you cannot go to the main conferences or workshops.
2. Also, preparation is practical in its essence. Thus, our papers can include videos and as many photos as necessary to make a technique easily perceptible. Most of the time it is difficult to express these techniques in words.
3. Our publications are edited in volumes. Each article is published by itself as a volume, which decreases the total amount of time for publication. This flexibility allows us, for example, to publish annals of congresses or symposia.
4. Our journal is totally open access and double-blind peer-reviewed. This doesn’t make our journal unique but certainly a “rare specimen.”

What advice would you give to authors who are interested in submitting their manuscripts to JPT?
Write! The preparation community is not used to writing about their findings, some of which are extremely important and can save thousands of euros for paleontological institutions. To spread paleontological techniques is to advance paleontology as a whole. Preparation is a science as well, in its most Popperian essence. To test and refute paleontological techniques is possible, and in fact, is done by all preparators everyday when we use different products, methods and tools, striving for the best way to do something efficiently.

What kind of difficulties, if any, have you encountered in editing JPT? How have these been solved?
When we embraced this project we quickly realized that the challenge was not to create the space to publish practical-paleontological ideas, but almost to change the status quo that preparators face nowadays. Institutions hire preparators to prepare fossils, not to write scientific articles. However, to my eyes, that is a rather limited view about the role of preparation. Preparation is the technical side of paleontology, and like any other science paleontology has its own methods—methods that are publishable. Actually, methods that are required to be published. Moreover, thinking strictly in an economic perspective, by spreading this sort of knowledge, preparator’s employers will quickly realize that they can save money by KNOWING and SHARING their knowledge.

In order to circumvent this problem, we are trying to present at as many events related to preparation as possible, not only to publicize the journal itself but also to spread the ideas behind it. We are part of mailing lists, groups of geosciences journals, and a gazillion things like that. For every preparation-related paleontological event that we know, we try to contact the organizers in order to publish the abstracts or edit a volume with selected papers. We are currently trying to organize an opinion paper that will be submitted in a mainstream paleontological journal, about the underestimation of the importance of preparation/paleontological techniques as a legitimate science. We recently got a wave of papers submitted, and hopefully it will be sustainable.

What has been the best part of editing a journal like JPT?
What I enjoy most about this project is actually the spirit of the journal and the challenge it represents. I believe the actual scenario is difficult, but not impossible to surpass. Ideally we would like to get help and cooperation from various areas of the preparation community, starting from the preparators themselves, up to the heads of departments, and paleontologists.

Image credit: courtesy Ricardo Araújo, originally published at Palaeontologia Electronica.

Interview: P. David Polly on Palaeontologia Electronica

This blog has been hosting a sporadic series interviewing the editors from various open access journals for paleontologists. This time around, I am very pleased to highlight Palaeontologia Electronica (PE for short). PE has a special place in my heart for two reasons. First, it was the earliest open access paleo journal around (that I know of). It began publication in 1998, before "open access" was even a part of the scientific vocabulary! Second, one of my first peer reviewed publications graced the pages of the journal, back in 2004.

PE's executive editor, P. David Polly, was kind enough to answer a few questions. As is only fair, he has asked me to remind readers that any opinions stated here are his alone, and do not necessarily represent official views of the journal.

How did you get involved with PE?
I got involved with PE in 1996, just after its inception and before the first issue was published. As I recall, the idea of an electronic journal of paleontology had been the idea of Norman MacLeod, Tim Patterson, and William Riedel in 1995, who then enthused the group of people who made up the first editorial board. Mark Purnell, my co-executive editor, Peter Roopnarine, the special issue editor, and Jennifer Rumford, our production editor, were all part of that group. So there are four of us who have been with PE for more than 14 years.

Given your long history with PE, have there been any particular surprises for you in how the journal has developed?
The main surprise was how hard it was to get people to publish with PE in the early days. Younger scientists were the ones most attracted by the idea, but they were also the ones to whom "impact factors" were the most important. The journal wasn't indexed by Thomson-Reuters until a few years ago and has only had an official "impact factor" since 2007. Before then we often struggled to get enough submissions to fill an issue, but since then the number of papers that come in is similar (or greater) than many other paleo journals.

Within the growing ecosystem of open access journals, what makes PE unique?
PE is unique in that it is completely sponsored by professional societies so that neither readers nor authors have to pay. Many so-called "open access" journals allow readers to have free access, but charge authors a steep fee. In my opinion, that funding model is even worse than high subscription fees for readers because funds for publication are not equally distributed among fields (paleo as a field has far few funds available for publication costs than does, say, medicine), nor are they equally distributed among researchers, institutions, or countries within a field. Publication is a fundamental part of science, or any academic discipline for that matter-- it's imperative that reserachers be able to publish their work and that others be able to read it.

In my mind, it is an obligation for anyone involved in a professional academic field to donate their time to reviewing papers, serving on editorial boards, paying dues to professional societies, and working for those societies to help facilitate and subsidize scientific publication. Sadly it is becoming increasingly difficult to get people to review papers, serve as editors, or otherwise commit time to these activities, which increasingly leaves academic publishing in the hands of corporate publishers, much to the detriment of fields like paleontology. No service that is offered by corporate publishing houses couldn't be offered by the academic community. The goal of PE is to publish quality science at the least possible cost, without taking a profit, and to reach the greatest possible audience.

What advice would you give to authors interested in submitting their research to the journal?
Format their papers correctly and, regardless of whether you submit to PE or another journal, to be willing to review at least five papers for every one you publish.

Are there any myths about PE that you'd like to see busted?
The main myth about PE that should be busted is that publication is instant. Once papers are accepted to PE, they come out in the next issue, which is faster than most journals, but the process of review and revision happens at the same speed as for any other paper. The thing that slows papers down the most is finding reviewers. I probably have two or three people decline to review for every one who says yes.... it can sometimes take a couple of months to find two suitable reviews for a paper. But once reviews have been found, revisions have been made, and proper formatting done, the papers come out quickly in PE.

Thank you, David!

Tony Martin Interview, Part 2

Yesterday, I ran the first part of this two-part interview with Anthony (Tony) Martin, senior author on a new paper in PLoS ONE. The research details a rare trace fossil (figured below) left behind by a bottom-feeding fish over 50 million years ago. Yesterday's questions focused on the science - in the final installment, we'll learn more about the publishing process. (Full disclosure: I am an editor for PLoS ONE, and was the editor who handled this manuscript.)

Why did you choose PLoS ONE as a venue for the manuscript?
All three of us really liked the fact that by publishing in PLoS ONE we could better share our research with both our colleagues and the general public. All too often I’ve published papers that were read by maybe two or three dozen of my colleagues (if I’m lucky), rather than a broader audience that might also find the work really interesting. I’ve also published in journals with “pay walls” erected to prevent non-subscribers from seeing articles. I know this really frustrates some science bloggers who want to write about the original research instead of just relying on press releases or news articles. So I am becoming more enamored with making sure all science enthusiasts have free access to original research results. PLoS ONE also has published some top-notch paleontological articles in the past few years, so it’s become a high-profile place to publish, while also permitting laypeople to learn from our science.

We also thought this research made for an interesting “fish story” combined with a “detective story,” sort of Sherlock Holmes-meets-fishing-meets-paleontology-meets-spatial analysis. The study also has some visually interesting elements, which through publishing in an electronic journal we could better share through our new (and very cool) application of the Deep Zoom™ software (link here). Now anyone with an Internet connection can check out the same trace fossil analyzed in the study through the pan-and-zoom function of the software.

Was there anything about the PLoS ONE process (good or bad) that surprised you?
Not really. One of my coauthors, Gonzalo [Vazquez-Prokopec] had previously published in one of the PLoS journals and said it was a straightforward process, with timely peer review and good, thorough feedback from the reviewers and editors. I’m pleased to say that our experience was the same, and it encourages me to consider PLoS ONE for future contributions.

Which of the Green River fish would have tasted best?
I would have loved to try Priscacara liops, either pan-fried or steamed with ginger, garlic, scallions, and soy. I’m not so sure that Notogoneus osculus [the focus of the current paper] would have been nearly as tasty, especially considering that we’re even more certain now it was a bottom feeder.

A big thank you to Tony, for taking the time for this interview. Don't forget to check out the paper, if you haven't already!

Reference

Martin, A., Vazquez-Prokopec, G., & Page, M. (2010). First known feeding trace of the Eocene bottom-dwelling fish Notogoneus osculus and its paleontological significance PLoS ONE, 5 (5) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010420

Image credits: Image of the ichnofossil modified from the original paper at PLoS ONE.

Something Fishy in PLoS ONE (and it's pretty neat!)

The open access journal PLoS ONE has published a lot of neat paleontology articles over the last few years (see here for a reasonably comprehensive listing). Charismatic, terrestrial vertebrates (whether dinosaurs, Ice Age mammals, or prehistoric humans) seem to dominate. But what about the poor, neglected fish?

Today, PLoS ONE published a nifty article by Anthony (Tony) Martin [pictured at left] and colleagues, discussing a 50 million year old fish feeding and swimming trace fossil from Wyoming. In the build-up to the release of their paper, Tony (a paleontologist with a specialization in trace fossils, over at Emory University) was kind enough to answer a few questions about the paper. Part 1 (focusing on the science behind the paper) is posted today, and Part 2 (focusing on the open access angle) will arrive tomorrow. [Full disclosure: I was the academic editor at PLoS ONE who handled this submission]

Briefly, what is the importance of the finding described in your new paper?

Several parts of it are important, and they’re all related.

One is that this is the first fish trace fossil described in detail from a formation that’s world-famous for its fish body fossils, the Green River Formation near Kemmerer, Wyoming. The Green River Formation was made by a series of lakes about 50 million years ago, and it preserved many gorgeous fossil fish, which have been collected and studied since the 1850s. However, fish trace fossils, such as trails made by their fins while swimming along the lake bottom, have been mostly neglected. Trace fossils can be extremely valuable for directly reflecting ancient behavior, and because the trace fossil we studied was extraordinarily detailed, it gave us some new insights we might not have gleaned from the fish body fossils.

Secondly, we are very sure about the species of fish made the trace fossil, namely, Notogoneus osculus [figured at right]. This fish had always been interpreted as a bottom feeder, and this is the first trace fossil to confirm this behavior. Our identification of the tracemaker is unusual, because oftentimes it’s tough to tell just what animal made a particular trace fossil. This one, though, gave us some great clues about “who done it.” The trace fossil [see figure below] has beautiful sine-like waves and other marks that show it made by a fish with a downward-pointing mouth, two pelvic pins, an anal fin, and a caudal fin. What really cinched it, though, was that this same species is also found as a body fossil in the same layer as the trace fossil. So our conclusion about the tracemaker is a pretty tight fit in every respect.

Thirdly, we figured out the size of the fish by applying some mathematical and spatial-analysis techniques that had never been used previously on a fish trace fossil. From these methods, we were calculated that the fish was 45 cm, or about 18 inches, which is exactly the average size of Notogoneus osculus. So not only do we know which fish did it, we know how big it was! This makes for a great fish story, because we can say that it was “the one that got away,” we can tell people what it was, and hold out our hands to say, “and it was THIS big (45 cm).” The kicker, of course, is that we’re talking about a fish from 50 million years ago, and in a lake that dried up nearly that long ago.

Lastly, this trace fossil shows a fish behaving normally, swimming and feeding along the lake bottom. Yet it was made in the deepest part of Fossil Lake, which supposedly excluded live fish because of low-oxygen conditions. So this fish trace fossil, along with a few others we mention in the paper, should give future researchers a good reason to reconsider the paleoecology of Fossil Lake. We now know that fish feeding on the bottom of the deepest part of Fossil Lake was a part of its benthic ecology, giving us a new insight about this long-studied deposit.

If you could share one thing about the research that didn't make it into the paper, what would that be? Is there an interesting back story to the project?

Actually, two things should be mentioned, the back story and a philosophical perspective.

The back story is that this may be the only paleontological paper in which the coauthors consist of an ichnologist (me), a disease ecologist (Gonzalo Vazquez-Prokopec), and a geographer (Michael Page). I know it sounds like the start of a bad (and really nerdy) joke, as in, “An ichnologist, a disease ecologist, and a geographer walked into a bar one day…”, but it was a great opportunity for the three of us, all in the same Environmental Studies department at Emory University, to work together in a creative and synergistic way. I did the primary detective work, interpreting the trace fossil in the broadest sense, Gonzalo did some spatial analysis and Fourier transform calculations, and Michael put together the Deep Zoom™ application that allows a viewer to look at a detailed digital image of the trace fossil. This shows how science can work in imaginative ways!

The philosophical point I want to make is summarized by a sentence buried in the paper that refers to places where the fish’s fins lifted off the bottom of the lake and left no marks:

“In other words, these breaks in the continuity of the fin trails also constitute parts of the trace fossil, and have behavioral significance.”

A metaphor I will use to describe this is that the moments of silence in a piece of music are also part of the music. Likewise in this trace fossil, wherever the fish did not touch the bottom, these “empty” places are still part of the trace fossil, and filled with meaning.

Stay tuned for Part 2, to be posted tomorrow!

Reference

Martin, A., Vazquez-Prokopec, G., & Page, M. (2010). First known feeding trace of the Eocene bottom-dwelling fish Notogoneus osculus and its paleontological significance PLoS ONE, 5 (5) DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0010420

Image credits: Notogoneus image from Wikimedia Commons; picture of Tony by Ruth Schowalter; image of the ichnofossil modified from the original paper at PLoS ONE.

Royalties for Scholarly Publishing?

I scarcely believed my eyes when I picked up the mail today. . .my first royalty check ever! It wasn't a lot - only $180.84 - but that's $180.84 that I didn't have yesterday. It's also making me reconsider some of my (previously uncharitable) thoughts about for-profit academic publishers.

One of the big criticisms of many commercial publishers is that they get the content written, typeset, and reviewed for free by the scientists, and then turn around and sell the content back to libraries (and individual consumers) at an exorbitant price. Furthermore, many of these publishers continue to show major growths in profits even in the face of an economic downturn. Well, it turns out that they're not as heartless as we thought. In response to pressure from open access publishers (some of whom make their authors pay ridiculous rates), libraries (who are having to cut back on all journal subscriptions), and researchers, the commercial publishers have had a change of heart. They've banded together into a consortium (with the rather euphonious name of BENT, combining portions of the major publishers' names) with the stated purpose of giving back to the academic community.

So how does it work? Well, let's say that an academic journal from a for-profit publisher costs libraries $1,200 per year. By comparison with non-profit journals of equivalent number of pages (and assuming that these non-profits are only breaking even), this means that each subscription nets around $850 profit per year. Assuming a 20 percent profit margin for the company (the investors deserve to be compensated, after all), this leaves around $610 of "spare" cash from each subscribing institution. Of course, we also have to remember that many libraries are only getting the journals as part of a bundle. Assuming that these bundles cut journal subscription costs in third, this still leaves around $200 from each subscribing library per year. If 500 libraries worldwide subscribe to a given paleontology journal in some form, this means a minimum of $100,000 left over!

Here's where the publishers have done something really, really smart. Recognizing that academics put a lot of time and effort into writing and reviewing articles, all of these after-profit proceeds are going back to the researchers. The amount designated per article is based on the length of the article within the years volume. The authors of an article get 75 percent, and the editors and reviewers get 25 percent.

What's that boil down to in real terms? Well, a co-author and I published a 6 page article in a journal that had a total of 1,400 pages last year. Proportionate to the $100,000 left-over money, this means our article gets a $428 cut of the proceeds. $107 goes to the reviewers and editor (split three ways), and the remainder ($321) goes to us authors. I was the junior author, so I got only 1/3 of that amount - $107. But, I also reviewed a 12 page article for the journal ($71 for that!). And better yet, the publishers now compensate us authors for profits from sales of PDFs! Frustratingly, I don't know how many copies of the article were sold, but I do know that I earned $2.84 as a result. Not too shabby - I'll quit complaining about having to pay $35 for a single article, knowing that the authors now reap the benefits.

This move by the publishers is a huge blow against the open access movement, and it means that I'm going to think twice about just giving my hard-earned research away for free (or worse yet, paying a publication fee). Regardless of what happens, I can't wait for another royalty check to arrive this time next year!

Interview: Brian Beatty, on PalArch (Part 1)

Regular readers of this blog probably know that I'm a big proponent of open access publishing. Today, I wanted to highlight another open access journal, PalArch's Journal of Vertebrate Paleontology. So, I contacted its managing editor, Brian Beatty, for more details. In addition to his editorial and academic duties, Brian blogs over at The Aquatic Amniote (and, coincidentally or not, most of his research involves. . .aquatic amniotes!).

How did you get involved with PalArch?
Back in late 2004 I saw a message on the VRTPALEO listserver from Andre Veldmeijer, asking for volunteers for the editorial board of this new journal based in the Netherlands. I was a PhD student at KU at the time, and though I had a lot on my plate, I was eager to learn about editing and peer review, and contacted Andre. I only had a single peer-reviewed publication to my name then, but had lots of projects in progress, had just finished my MS at Howard University with Daryl Domning, and was eager to be done with being a student and wanted to just focus on getting work done. My undergrad advisor at the FLMNH, Dave Webb, always spoke about how peer review was perhaps more beneficial to the reviewer than the author, always keeping one up to date, and so when the opportunity to get involved on an editorial board came up, I jumped at it.

Ironically, when I introduced myself to Andre, I gave him some background, including mention of my recent advisor, Daryl Domning. Andre specializes in the archaeology of ancient Egypt, particularly the leatherwork and rope, and Daryl was one of the few other people that had dabbled in writing scientific papers describing unique knots that ancient Egyptians used. Andre excitedly asked me, "Do you mean, THE Daryl Domning?", and when I finally understood why he found that interesting, we had a laugh at the improbability of it.

Since then, I've tried my best to be a consistent help to the journal, and as time passed and Andre needed more and more help, I volunteered more and more of my time to it. He has always been respectful of my opinions about how journals should be managed, and it has been a great 5+ years of working together.

What kind of papers are you looking for?
PalArch's Journal of Vertebrate Palaeontology is interested in anything and everything related to vertebrate paleontology, including reviews and commentaries, but especially new information, including reports of new specimens of rare taxa that highlight new insights about it, faunal studies or contributions about the distribution of fossil taxa, paleopathology case reports, novel paleobiological methods, and even new taxon descriptions. We've been in contact with the ICZN for years about how to comply to the rules about publishing new species names, and because we deposit printed versions of the journal in clearly identified libraries, all names published in PalArch are legitimate. Though we would love to have more high-profile papers submitted, such as recent studies of hominids from Wallacea (Plas, 2007) and Flores (Heteren, 2008), I am eager to get more submissions in general, and hope to see a more prolific submission rate so we can fully realize the journal's potential.

What are the advantages of publishing with PalArch? What does PalArch offer that other journals might not?
The fundamental reason I got involved with PalArch was because of the journal's primary goal, which was to provide an avenue for publication of good science that might otherwise be too long, not popular or sexy enough, or controversial to make it into the restricted world of printed journals. The idea was simple, and yet at the time when I started I hadn't realized how few journals did that, I only knew I was frustrated by some.

PalArch is completely not-for-profit, volunteer run, and though we are all human and have our inevitable biases, we try to stay focused on the validity and quality of the science, not the popularity of it. There are no pages charges, and no limitations on length or color figures (similar to that of Palaeontologica Electronica). We try to get reviews done quickly, though we've had a longer than desired lag time in publication because we have a tendency to spend time helping authors that are not native english speakers with their editing and writing, which can often take longer than initially hoped for. I have been trying to get reviewers to be more rapid and responsible about reviews, though I think most editors would agree that that is easier said than done. So, one selling point is the time it should take - though reviewers slow things down, we really try to get things formatted and published online as soon as they are accepted, meaning that a publication could occur within less than a month, IF reviews go well and revisions are managed rapidly.

Tune in tomorrow, for Part 2 of the interview. Image credit for picture at top: Photo by Mo Hassan, proprietor of The Disillusioned Taxonomist. Another blog well worth checking out!