A proposal for a really fast statistics journal

I know we need a new journal like we need a good poke in the eye. But I got fired up by the recent discussion of open science (by Paul Krugman and others) and the seriously misguided Research Works Act- that aimed to make it illegal to deposit published papers funded by the government in Pubmed central or other open access databases.

I also realized that I spend a huge amount of time/effort on the following things: (1) waiting for reviews (typically months), (2) addressing reviewer comments that are unrelated to the accuracy of my work - just adding citations to referees papers or doing additional simulations, and (3) resubmitting rejected papers to new journals - this is a huge time suck since I have to reformat, etc. Furthermore, If I want my papers to be published open-access I also realized I have to pay at minimum $1,000 per paper

So I thought up my criteria for an ideal statistics journal. It would be accurate, have fast review times, and not discriminate based on how interesting an idea is. I have found that my most interesting ideas are the hardest ones to get published.  This journal would:

  • Be open-access and free to publish your papers there. You own the copyright on your work. 
  • The criteria for publication would be: (1) it has to do with statistics, computation, or data analysis, (2) is the work is technically correct. 
  • We would accept manuals, reports of new statistical software, and full length research articles. 
  • There would be no page limits/figure limits. 
  • The journal would be published exclusively online. 
  • We would guarantee reviews within 1 week and publication immediately upon review if criteria (1) and (2) are satisfied
  • Papers would receive a star rating from the editor - 0-5 stars. There would be a place for readers to also review articles
  • All articles would be published with a tweet/like button so they can be easily distributed

To achieve such a fast review time, here is how it would work. We would have a large group of Associate Editors (hopefully 30 or more). When a paper was received, it would be assigned to an AE. The AEs would agree to referee papers within 2 days. They would use a form like this:

  • Review of: Jeff’s Paper
  • Technically Correct: Yes
  • About statistics/computation/data analysis: Yes
  • Number of Stars: 3 stars

<p>
  <ul>
    <li>
      3 Strengths of Paper (1 required): 
    </li>
    <li>
      This paper revolutionizes statistics 
    </li>
  </ul>

  <p>
    <ul>
      <li>
        3 Weakness of Paper (1 required): 
      </li>
      <li>
        * The proof that this paper revolutionizes statistics is pretty weak
      </li>
      <li>
        because he only includes one example.
      </li>
    </ul></blockquote> 

    <div>
    </div>

    <div>
      That&#8217;s it, super quick, super simple, so it wouldn&#8217;t be hard to referee. As long as the answers to the first two questions were yes, it would be published. 
    </div>

    <div>
    </div>

    <div>
      So now here&#8217;s my questions: 
    </div>

    <div>
    </div>

    <div>
      <ol>
        <li>
          Would you ever consider submitting a paper to such a journal?
        </li>
        <li>
          Would you be willing to be one of the AEs for such a journal? 
        </li>
        <li>
          Is there anything you would change? 
        </li>
      </ol>
    </div>

    <div>
    </div></div>
 
comments powered by Disqus