# 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
• 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>