The concepts behind Rubriq’s approach to independent peer review came from multiple sources and years of collective experience from the team. But as we researched ways that Rubriq could solve many of the problems with scholarly publishing, we came across two papers that seemed to resonate most with the team.
Surprisingly, they were both published in the same journal: Frontiers of Computational Neuroscience.
- Kravitz DJ and Baker CI (2011) Toward a new model of scientific publishing: discussion and a proposal. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 5:55. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2011.00055
- Priem J and Hemminger BM (2012) Decoupling the scholarly journal. Front. Comput. Neurosci. 6:19. doi: 10.3389/fncom.2012.00019
In the first paper, Toward a new model of scientific publishing: discussion and a proposal, Kravitz and Baker do a nice job of explaining the challenges of “journal loops” and the inefficiency of our current scholarly publishing model. The eloquently explain the need to create an independent model of peer review and the benefits one would have on the research community. Be sure to check out the long list of comments from the community on this paper.
In the second paper, Decoupling the scholarly journal, Priem and Hemminger list the characteristics a solution needs to include in order to replace the current model. They argue that decoupling the value chain of scholarly publishing is the way to open up innovation into the system. We couldn’t agree more!
I encourage you to check out both of these papers. They are thought provoking and well worth the read.