As a first for me, I have been accepted as a member of the editorial board of the new journal
Frontiers in Genetics. I'm very excited about this, particularly because I think the particular model of peer-review might benefit science a lot: Articles will be peer-reviewed for correctness, followed by an open online post-review by readers. It's sort of like PLoS ONE in that manuscripts don't have to present completely novel ideas, but with the added post-review by peers that will determine it's impact on the field.
Whether this will work better is an empirical question, and I look forward to seeing the outcome: Will science benefit by shorter time from submission to publication? Will costs be reduced and less money going directly from tax-payers to journals (journals take money from authors to publish, and cost money to subscribe to, and yet ask for a free service from reviewers)? Changing either or both of those would be a step in the right direction.
Specifically I am a review editor for
Frontiers in Evolutionary and Population Genetics, which you are hereby encouraged to send your manuscripts to.
Hey, congrats. And the journal looks really cool, as does the community. I'm going to check it out.
ReplyDelete