COPE Forum 4 March 2014: Issues related to papers submitted to “discussion” journals

Authors in any subject area have always had a number of potential publications to choose from when they decide that they want to publish their research. As well as subscription journals to pick from, the increasing number of Open Access models has meant that the choices for authors are expanding all the time. A new type of publication that has arisen from the OA movement is the European Geosciences Union (EGU) and Copernicus model of open peer review and “Discussion” journals, examples of which are:

• Hydrology and Earth System Sciences: Discussions
• Hydrology
• Earth System Sciences Earth Surface Dynamics: Discussions
• Earth Surface Dynamics.

How does this model work?

1. The author submits their paper to the Discussion section of the journal
2. Within 2–8 weeks, the paper is up online with a DOI, ready for the open peer review process
3. Two referees are invited to post their reviews online
4. Anyone else can comment on the paper whilst it is going through review
5. A decision is made on the paper based on the review comments, with the normal “major,” “minor,” “accept” and “reject” decisions available to the editors
6. If a paper receives a “minor” or “major” decision, the authors make their changes offline and submits their new version to the Discussion section for the next round of reviews
7. If a paper is accepted, it moves into the “proper” version of the journal, with a link to the original discussion version
8. If a paper is rejected, it remains online with the DOI and reviewer comments in the Discussion section of the journal

This discussion document concerns this model of peer review and publication, but primarily the consequences of the decision of “reject” on papers.

Download the PDF for the full discussion.