Leo Waaijers' "Non-Proprietary Peer Review" Proposal

---

SUMMARY: Leo Waaijers suggests in Ariadne that funder OA mandates impose "unfair conditions" on authors because there are not enough Gold OA journals to publish in. So instead, funders should fund research on alternative "non-proprietary peer review" services. This is based on a misunderstanding of OA mandates (which are for author self-archiving of the final peer-reviewed drafts of articles published in peer-reviewed non-OA journals, i.e., Green OA, not Gold OA) as well as a misunderstanding of peer review, which needs to be neither reformed, replaced nor redirected: existing peer-reviewed articles need merely to be self-archived.

---

Leo Waaijers wrote in Ariadne, "Publish and Cherish with Non-proprietary Peer Review Systems":

LW: "More and more research funders require open access to the publications that result from research they have financed... Although there is a steadily growing number of peer-reviewed Open Access journals... the supply fails to keep pace with the demand... [A]s authors cannot all publish in Open Access journals... Open Access-mandating funders impose unfair conditions on authors."

There is a profound misunderstanding here. Funders who mandate Open Access (OA) impose no "unfair conditions." What they mandate is the self-archiving of all published articles ("Green OA"), not the publishing of all articles in Open Access (OA) journals ("Gold OA").

It cannot be pointed out often enough that Gold OA is not the sole or primary way to provide OA: The incomparably faster, easier, cheaper and surer way to provide OA is for authors to self-archive articles published in non-OA journals by depositing them in the author's Institutional Repository (IR) (Green OA). And that is exactly what funders and institutions are mandating. No need to wait for all publishers to convert to Gold OA. Hence no "unfairness."

Most of the top institutions already have IRs. All the rest can create them with free (and extremely powerful) software; moreover, the DEPOT repository is available (now internationally) for self-archiving by author's whose institutions do not yet have an IR or for authors who do not have an institution.

Hence Leo's point about "unfair conditions" by funder mandates is either misinformed or misinforming.

LW: "[A] conversion... from proprietary to non-proprietary systems of peer review... can be speeded up if disciplinary communities, universities, and research funders actively enter the market of the peer review organisers by calling for tenders and inviting publishers to submit proposals for a non-proprietary design of the peer review process"

This is a non sequitur. What is needed is Open Access to peer-reviewed articles (2.5 million articles per year, published in 25,000 peer-reviewed journals). Most of those articles are available today only via toll-access (institutional subscriptions). The solution is neither to keep waiting for those journals to convert to Gold OA, nor to try to invent alternative forms of peer review. That would be like thinking that the way to solve the problem of public smoking is not to mandate no-smoke zones but to invent an alternative form of cigarette, or instead of mandating medicare to invent alternative forms of medicine, or instead of mandating recycling to invent an alternative form of garbage.

Not only is there no need to try to replace existing journals and their peer review system, but the problem with peer review is not that it is a proprietary service (for which the service-provider -- the journal -- needs to be paid) but that the byproducts of the service -- the peer-reviewed articles -- are not openly accessible to all would-be users.

And the solution is for authors to self-archive (the final, peer-reviewed drafts of) their peer-reviewed articles (Green OA) -- and for authors' institutions and funders to mandate it (submit submit tenders soliciting research proposals for alternatives to peer review!).

There is no need (and certainly no time) to wait to re-invent peer review in new hands and try to persuade (mandate?) authors to publish in these new "non-proprietary systems of peer review" instead of their existing peer-reviewed journals; nor is there the need or time to persuade publishers (already sluggish about converting to Gold OA) or others to turn to "tenders" inviting them to design a new system of peer review.

What is needed is for authors' institutions and funders to mandate Green OA self-archiving, a non-hypothetical solution that has already been tested, works, and can scale to all 2.5 million articles published annually in the planet's 25,000 peer-reviewed journals as quickly and surely as it can be mandated.

LW: "The [funder]... requires that... published research appears as openly accessible peer-reviewed articles."

The way for the funder to require that published research should appear as openly accessible peer-reviewed articles is to mandate that the author's final peer-reviewed draft (not the publisher's proprietary PDF) must be self-archived in the author's OA IR immediately upon acceptance for publication. That's all. No need for "tenders" for "non-proprietary peer review."

And this is exactly what most of the existing and proposed OA mandates (by funders as well as institutions) require -- not the "unfair condition" of having to find and publish in a suitable Gold OA journal. Hence there is no need at all to create new Gold OA journals, let alone new forms of peer review, in order to provide universal OA, today. All that is needed is Green OA mandates.

But Leo instead recommends a highly speculative alternative for reforming peer review that is not only untested and unnecessary, but contains within the proposal itself the signs that it misunderstands how peer review itself works, and why it is needed for research and researchers:

LW: "In order to have appropriate review procedures in place to process these articles... The reviewing process must be independent, rigorous and swift..."

So far, so good (except Leo does not say how peer review should be speeded up, given the number of papers submitted daily for peer review, the number of qualified peer reviewers available, and the number of their waking hours that researchers can devote to peer reviewing. Let us agree, however, that there are indeed ways to make this process faster and more efficient in the online era.)

But now, the proposed system (for which, Leo recommends, funders should solicit proposals, instead of mandating Green OA):

LW: "As a result of the reviewing process, articles will be marked 1 [low] to 5 [high]... In review procedures the [funder] will weigh articles with marks 3, 4 and 5 as if they were published in journals with impact factors 1-3, 4-8 and 9-15 respectively... For articles marked 3 to 5 adequate Open Access publication platforms must be available (e.g. new Open Access journals). Alternatively, authors may publish their articles in any existing OA journal. Upon publication all articles will be deposited in a certified (institutional) repository."

This speculative notion of peer review imagines that peer review consists of giving papers marks.

(It does not. It involves assessing their contents and making concrete recommendations as to what needs to be done by way of revision -- if they are potentially acceptable -- and reasons for rejection if not. What users expect and need from journals is an all-or-none indication of whether an article has met that journal's established quality-standards for acceptance. Any internal ratings the referees might have used in the process of coming to a recommendation on acceptance or rejection are not for the user but the editor. The real ranking for the user -- and author -- is in the quality hierarchy among journals. Their quality standards -- meaning what percentage of articles meet their acceptance criteria -- are reflected in their track-records and known to users. They are also (sometimes) reflected in the journals' impact factor. But that impact factor -- which is objectively determined by journals' average citation counts -- is certainly not the same thing as referees' internal ratings.)

Leo suggests that these "marks" should be given (by someone), with marks 3-5 standing in for having been published in peer-reviewed journals with corresponding "impact factors," for which there must be a corresponding Gold OA journal (either new or existing) for them to appear in (created to ensure that "unfair conditions" are not imposed by the deposit requirement).

Then the paper can be deposited in a "certified" IR. (One wonders why? Since all articles, in Leo's hypothetical scenario, would be published in Gold OA journals that this peer-review reform proposal had miraculously generated, why do they need to be deposited in IRs at all -- "certified" or otherwise -- since they are all already OA?)

In other words, Leo has invented an imaginary problem with deposit mandates (viz, "there aren't enough Gold OA journals") -- whereas the mandates are not to publish in Gold OA journals but to deposit in Green OA IRs. And then he has invented an imaginary solution to the problem (viz, create new "non-proprietary peer-review services" and then publish the outcome in new Gold OA journals that no longer need to bother to implement peer review). All in order to be able to "fairly" deposit them in "certified" IRs?

My guess is that this rather complicated conjectural solution ("non-proprietary peer-review services") to an imagined problem ("unfair Gold OA mandates") was inspired by Leo's incorrect six assumptions:

(1) that what needs to be deposited in an IR in order to provide OA is the publisher's proprietary PDF, i.e., the canonical version of record (whereas what needs to be deposited for OA is just the peer-reviewed final draft ("postprint" which is merely a supplement to -- not a substitute for -- the canonical version of record);

(2) that depositing in Closed Access during any publisher embargo on OA would not fulfill the deposit mandate (whereas in fact it would, and especially with the help of the IR's semi-automatic "email eprint request" button to tide over research usage needs during any embargo on OA);

(3) that peer review is largely just a rank-assignment (whereas in reality peer review is a dynamic, interactive, answerable system of detecting and correcting errors so as to meet a given journal's established quality standards);

(4) that OA means just Gold OA publishing (whereas Green OA self-archiving too is OA);

(5) that what research and researchers really need is not just Green OA, but Gold OA (whereas what they need is OA) and hence that

(6) IRs are just for digital preservation (whereas OA IRs are for OA-provision today, and digital preservation of the canonical version of record is an entirely different matter, unrelated to OA until and unless subscriptions become unsustainable, thus making the author's peer-reviewed final draft the canonical version of record!).

Stevan Harnad
American Scientist Open Access Forum