










Free for authors, free for readers, free from publisher, free




	
		Free Neuropathology 1:1 (2020)

		
	
		Editorial

		
	
		
		Free for authors, 
		free for readers, free from publisher, free

		formatting and free opinion: This is Free Neuropathology

		
	
		
		Werner Paulus

		
	
		
		Institute of Neuropathology, University Hospital Muenster, Muenster, 
		Germany

		
	
		Corresponding author:

		Werner Paulus, 
		Institute of Neuropathology, Pottkamp 2, 48149 Muenster, Germany

		werner.paulus@uni-muenster.de

		
	
		Submitted: 05 December 
		2019

		Published: 01 January 
		2020

		 

		 https://doi.org/10.17879/fnp-2020-2610

		
	
				
		 

		
		As reader, author, 
		referee and editor I have often discussed and reflected upon the nature 
		of the "perfect" journal - what are the qualities that make up a great 
		scientific journal? The following ingredients came to my mind:

		
		•   
		excellent science

		
		•   
		interesting and relevant content

		
		•   
		high visibility

		
		•   
		a high impact factor

		
		•   
		short turnaround times (from submission to first decision, from 
		accept to online publication)

		
		•   
		fair reviews

		
		•   
		no unnecessary major revisions just to satisfy referees

		
		•   
		a responsive and supportive editorial office

		
		•   
		insightful editors

		
		•   
		no subscription rates for readers (open access)

		
		•   
		low (ideally no) article processing fees for
		authors

		
		•   
		a convenient and easy electronic submission system

		
		•   
		high technical standard (figures, copyediting, layout)

		
		•   
		a clear and informative website

		
		•   
		electronic tools for enabling interaction between authors and 
		readers

		
		I am not aware of a 
		journal that fulfills all of these requirements. Since the great 
		majority of established journals are published by commercial publishers, 
		some of these features are out of control of the editor, such as quality 
		of copyediting, layout design, time until online publication, charges 
		for authors and/or readers, promotion, and appearance and content of the 
		website. However, there is no need for these latter features to fall 
		into the responsibility of the publisher. Should scientists be willing 
		to perform these activities themselves, they are in principle well 
		capable to found, shape and run a wonderful journal that fulfills the 
		expectations of the scientific community. It was precisely this insight 
		that sparked the development of Free Neuropathology.

		
		Why is the new 
		journal called Free Neuropathology? The word "free" bears various 
		meanings. First, it means no cost, like in "free beer". Accordingly, the 
		journal is free of cost for everyone. When discussing the name, a few 
		colleagues expressed concern that "free" may have a connotation of "poor 
		quality", because something without price might be considered as having 
		no value. I am not convinced of this argument, because some of our 
		highest ethical values cannot be bought for money (and thus are for 
		free), and because some  
		Universities with the word "free" in their name are among the most 
		distinguished academic institutions, such as Frije Universiteit 
		Amsterdam and Freie Universität Berlin. Second, "free" means having the 
		freedom to do something your own way. In fact, at Free Neuropathology we 
		are able to decide on every aspect of the journal without having to obey 
		non-scientific paper-shufflers, and we put much emphasis on freedom from 
		unnecessary formalities and bureaucracy that increasingly abound in the 
		publishing business. Third, we encourage authors to submit not only 
		original papers, letters and reviews, but also opinion pieces, critiques 
		and annotations, because we feel that frank views, open-minded 
		discussion and critical analysis of prevailing approaches and trendy 
		hypotheses are integral parts of science. In the end, the name of the 
		journal reflects a mix of freebie, freedom and liberty.

		
		Free for authors and 
		free for readers

		
		Most scientists, 
		scientific organizations and politicians believe that publishing is 
		expensive and that someone has to pay for the publication process, 
		either the reader through subscription models or the author through 
		open-access models. I believe that there is a third option if the 
		activities of the publisher are rendered by scientists working in the 
		field of the journal, i.e. by authors, referees and editors who have put 
		the most time, energy and enthusiasm into the journal anyway. It is true 
		that some technical infrastructure and manpower is necessary to keep a 
		journal running and that this is not without cost, but compared to the 
		time that scientists spend as voluntary referees and editors (let alone 
		the work of authors), the additional time and expenses for taking over 
		the publishers´ classical activities are moderate and they can easily be 
		covered by scientific institutions. Furthermore, while in past years 
		handling of manuscripts, layout and printing of journals required 
		considerable time, staff, technical skills and money, digital publishing 
		has made these activities easier, increasingly automated and cheaper. At 
		Free Neuropathology we take advantage of the Open Journal Systems 
		platform for the management of peer-reviewed academic journals. Many 
		thanks to the developers of this open-source software and to my 
		university library!

		
		Green Open Access 
		means self-archiving of the accepted version of the manuscript in the 
		authors´ format. In the Gold Open Access model, articles are made 
		immediately and freely available, while authors must pay article 
		processing fees. Diamond Open Access (also referred to as Platinum Open 
		Access), as will be employed at Free Neuropathology, means that the 
		whole process, including submission, handling by the editorial team, 
		peer review, copyediting, layout and retrieving full text content, is 
		completely free. These tasks are taken over by colleagues who provide 
		high quality editorial, peer reviewing and publishing services. Free 
		Neuropathology´s Diamond Open Access model is based on the enthusiasm of 
		volunteers who love to be engaged in the scientific publication process, 
		thereby serving science and society. We also believe that volunteers 
		will enjoy career benefits and recognition from institutions for doing 
		the work. Our young members of the Layout/Copyediting board feel that 
		this is a great opportunity to learn about publishing and a great way to 
		expand personal networks.

		
		Free from publishers

		
		Virtually everyone 
		in science criticizes the high profit margins and pricing policies of 
		commercial publishers. It has been estimated that the major fifty-seven 
		academic publishers generate a combined revenue of 60 billion € per 
		year, with profits in the range of 20 to 50%. Increases in subscription 
		fees by 60% per year for individual journals are not unusual – the more 
		prestigious the journal, the more impertinent the increase. While from 
		an economical point of view this is understandable because shareholders 
		and private equity must be satisfied; however, the excessive cash 
		outflow endangers science. This scenario is even more absurd, because 
		scientists working voluntarily as authors, referees and members of 
		editorial boards do the bulk of the work, thereby serving as useful 
		dupes for publishing houses and maximizing the profit of people who have 
		zero interest in science per se.

		
		The authors, who are 
		largely funded by governments, even offer their work to publishers for 
		free, who then sell it back to government-funded institutions at 
		astronomical prices. Publishers are inventive in obfuscating their 
		business models. The cash flow is often organized in a way so that the 
		individual scientist does not see the problem, because subscription fees 
		or article processing charges are covered by universities or funding 
		agencies. Needless to say that, in the end, all scientists have to pay 
		the bill because the money transferred to publishers needs to be 
		detracted from personnel, infrastructure and funding of scientific 
		institutions. Furthermore, publishers have invented a variety of new 
		services that nobody needs, in order to justify their prices. Finally, 
		publishers sell not only their few top journals but also bunches of 
		hundreds of low-impact or irrelevant journals to large scientific 
		organizations. Nobody is in need of these journals, but all scientists 
		have to pay for them. Established publishers tend to condemn so-called 
		predatory publishers because they rip off scientists, but do they mean 
		themselves?

		
		Let me relate to you 
		a parable (it´s a bit lengthy and needs pondering, so if you have little 
		time feel free to skip to the next paragraph): An artist has created a 
		painting after spending years of work, money, creativity, care and 
		enthusiasm. Because this is the way it has always been, the artist does 
		not try to sell the opus, but prefers to donate it to a company called 
		JumpArtize, which is owned by private equity that operates amusement 
		parks and museums. The businesspeople of JumpArtize do not understand 
		art nor do they appreciate it, but they are very good at making the most 
		money out of it. Artists must pay art processing charges (APC) for the 
		art they donate, and they find this OK because JumpArtize builds and 
		maintains museums, frames and dusts the paintings, employs staff 
		(custodians, cleaners, clerks), and counts how often each piece of art 
		is mentioned in newspaper articles and social media, resulting in the 
		ArtificialFactor®. Alternatively, artists can commit to lifelong work 
		for one week per year in one of JumpArtize´s amusements parks as clowns 
		or as animate figures in haunted houses (Open Joy Program). Many artists 
		love to become famous and they try to endow their artwork to the most 
		prestigious museums boasting the highest ArtificialFactor®. JumpArtize 
		asks several art historians to evaluate the offered paintings and to 
		write up art critiques within two weeks for free, which they happily 
		accept because they consider the invitation to be an honor. Admission 
		fees for the museum are high at about 120 € and they rise by 30 % every 
		year, but the public accepts this because art is considered to be high 
		value and because prices for dusters have increased recently. The 
		artists themselves must also pay admission fees to see their own works, 
		but they are allowed to hang a low-quality poster of their paintings in 
		their private rooms. Some museums of JumpArtize offer free entrance for 
		everyone if artists are willing to defray the costs of running the 
		museum and serve as building workers for JumpArtize´s new 20-story 
		headquarters building. Politicians and several national academies of 
		fine arts are very proud of having successfully negotiated with 
		JumpArtize that artists are allowed to terminate work in haunted houses 
		by the age of 80 (Plan Artistique or in short Plan A). Meanwhile 
		JumpArtize, including all fun parks, museums and artwork has been sold 
		to another private equity investor for double the original price. If you 
		find this scenario absurd or crazy, what does it mean for the behavior 
		of scientists?

		
		Scientists, 
		librarians and politicians complain about costs of journals but at the 
		same time they continue to support commercial publishers. Science 
		politicians have been very proud of negotiations or declarations such as 
		Plan S or DEAL, whereby article processing charges are limited or 
		somewhat reduced, but in the end they have surrendered. Financially 
		supporting journals by national or international funding organizations 
		(such as Gates Open Research) is also not helpful, because funding is 
		usually restricted to a limited period of time, so that permanent 
		structures which are mandatory for scientific journals are endangered. 
		At first glance, journals that are owned by scientific societies and 
		published by commercial publishers may be in a more comfortable 
		position, because societies can replace the publisher in case of 
		disagreement or disservice. However, the problem is that scientific 
		societies usually develop dollar signs in their eyes as soon as the 
		publisher offers sharing part of the profit. This corrupts science. I am 
		deeply convinced that the purpose of scientific journals is publishing 
		science, ideally the best science, but definitely not making money, for 
		whomsoever.

		
		There are other good 
		reasons for proceeding without publishers. We, the scientists and 
		developers of a journal, will be in a position to decide on website, 
		layout, copyediting and promotion, and we no longer depend on 
		publishers´ decisions which are led by financial considerations. For 
		example, publishers tend to decline suggestions of modifying individual 
		journal websites because, for economical or branding reasons, they want 
		the websites of their hundreds or thousands of journals to appear 
		identical. Publishers promote journals at commercial exhibitions at 
		scientific meetings (often largely unnoticed by scientists), while 
		scientists know their field, their colleagues and the appropriate 
		communication channels better than publishers do. Scientists therefore 
		could perform more efficiently and more cost-effectively in undertaking 
		these classical publishers´ activities. It is true that publishers have 
		much more experience because at least the handful of oligopolistic 
		publishers have published thousands of journals before. But we will 
		learn and we will learn fast. And yes, we may be somewhat naïve, we will 
		make mistakes and some technical issues will not work perfectly right 
		from the start, but in my experience scientists work more efficiently 
		and creatively than publishers´ staff, and in the end our approach will 
		be successful.

		
		Publishers like to 
		talk about ethics. They request from authors disclosures of potential 
		conflicts of interest such as shareholding of family members in relevant 
		companies, they ask for reference numbers of ethical committees, they 
		request statements of author contributions, and they analyze papers 
		using software for detecting plagiarism and manipulation of figures. 
		While these activities may be considered to be measures for increasing 
		quality and transparency (as well as subscription rates and article 
		processing fees), publishers play the role of science police, thereby 
		undermining the general credibility of scientists and considering them 
		as potential cheaters and criminals. To be clear, I find that ethical 
		standards and guidelines are important, but they should be developed and 
		released by scientific societies and not by individual publishers who 
		just try to increase sales and the prestige of their products. 
		Publishers stress the highest ethical standards, but in the end they are 
		interested in nothing more than profit and they harness scientists in 
		their dull business. Commercial publishers have had a detrimental effect 
		on science. Publishing scientific work together with commercial 
		publishers should be discontinued for reasons of economy, quality and 
		ethics.

		
		Free formatting

		
		Many scientists are 
		concerned and annoyed by the increasing number of formal requirements 
		when submitting papers, such as rigid regulations on references, tables, 
		figures, organization of manuscript, font type/size, abbreviations and 
		nomenclature. We believe that most of these regulations are unnecessary 
		and they detract from the gist of the purpose, i.e. prompt publication 
		of good science. At Free Neuropathology authors can format their paper 
		as they like, as long as formatting is consistent within the paper and 
		the paper has been well written and carefully prepared.

		
		Free opinion

		
		Controversial 
		discussion and deviating views represent an integral part of science, 
		which is often somewhat neglected for technical, psychological and 
		political reasons. At Free Neuropathology we have implemented features 
		so that authors and readers can take part in scientific discussion. We 
		encourage the submission of “Opinion Pieces” which are in a separate 
		category of papers in this journal. This is a channel for expressing 
		personal but scientifically founded views on hypotheses, terminology, 
		key papers, opinion making, politics or anything else related to 
		neuropathology. In addition, and in order to stimulate discussion on 
		papers published in Free Neuropathology, we use the open-source software 
		Hypothesis which basically introduces an annotation layer over any 
		paper. After signing-in and clicking the arrow on the right side of the 
		browser window, the Hypothesis side-bar will appear and you will be able 
		to provide sentence-level comments, add critique, share information and 
		engage in discussion. Finally, even the editor can express frank views 
		in editorials or social media channels -- this cannot be taken for 
		granted under other circumstances.

		
		Feel free to join

		
		If you support our concept and share our spirit: feel free to join the 
		movement. When you have interesting data in the fields of human or 
		experimental neuropathology: submit an Original Paper to Free 
		Neuropathology. When you have concisely written up something as a 
		letter: consider Free Neuropathology for prompt publication. When you 
		have strong views about a controversial issue or if you disagree with 
		anything in the field: send us an Opinion Piece. If you like grassroots 
		movements and soft revolutions: support and recommend Free 
		Neuropathology. If you would like to become actively involved in our 
		editorial activities, if you are willing to share your technical skills, 
		or if you have comments, questions, critique, ideas or stimulating 
		suggestions: send me a note.






