Dubbed RIO Journal - for Research Ideas and Outcomes - it lives on
and will start accepting submissions in November.
Some of its key features are summarized at
- it will publish research all along the research cycle
- it will map its content to societal challenges
- it will make its peer review fully transparent
- it lets authors choose which services they want from the journal
- it uses a collaborative authoring platform that turns WYSIWYG into
JATS, the XML format required for ingestion into PubMed Central
It will start accepting submissions in November. Suggestions for
subject editors in your areas of expertise are most welcome, as are
any other forms of feedback.
It's strange for an open science platform to be closed, but I hope that this won't last long, and the more active the site is in private beta, the earlier it should be able to switch to public.
I think the whole idea of on-demand query-based learning is very important, and it will eventually replace much of the traditional sequester approach to education.
https://github.com/Daniel-Mietchen/datascience/blob/master/emergency-response.md . Thanks!
@Randall: If openness is beneficial in the context of emergency response (and the growing list suggests it is), then paving the way towards more openness in future emergency responses might well have an impact that would justify interest in the matter.
I use data from the article
 Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth? by Bo-Christer Björk https://dx.doi.org/10.7717/peerj.981 , table 3
and the arXiv monthly submission rates
To have a clear comparison I shall look at the window 2010-2014.
Before showing the numbers, there are some things to add.
1. I saw the article  via the post by
 Have we reached Peak Megajournal? http://svpow.com/2015/05/29/have-we-reached-peak-megajournal/
I invite you to read it, it is interesting as usual.
2. Usually, the activity of counting articles is that dumb thing which is used by managers to hide behind, in order to not be accountable for their decisions.
Counting articles is a very lossy compression technique, which associates to an article a very small number of bits.
I indulged into this activity because of the discussions from the G+ post
and its clone
[4'] Eisen’ “parasitic green OA” is the apt name for Harnad’ flawed definition of green OA, but all that is old timers disputes, the future is here and different than both green and gold OA https://chorasimilarity.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/eisen-parasitic-green-oa-is-the-apt-name-for-harnad-flawed-definition-of-green-oa-but-all-that-is-old-timers-disputes-the-future-is-here-and-different-than-both-green-and-gold-oa/
These discussions made me realize that the arXiv model is carefully edited out from reality by the creators and core supporters of green OA and gold OA.
I invite you to go and read all, but I cite two revealing comments:
(a) , comment in  (I don't know how to give the link to the comment, you'll have to use the link to the post) which replies to this part of one of my comments:
[me] " I am not arguing with your other writings, but this title looked to me misleading. From the post I learned about stuff which puzzled me in the past, for example why the non-symmetric definition of green vs gold OA from wikipedia: "The two ways authors can provide open access are (1) by self-archiving their journal articles in an open access repository, also known as 'green' open access, or (2) by publishing in an open access journal, known as 'gold' open access." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_access ."
[Michael Eisen, my boldface] "There's a confusion of terminology here. Although the terms are not used consistently, in most usage "green open access" refers specifically to the practice of publishing a paper in a subscription journal and then making the paper freely available in an archive. Thus placing preprints in arXiv prior to publication is not green OA - it is something else. Indeed the origins of "green" in "green OA" refer to the green light given by publishers to allow versions of their articles to be posted. For example, Harnard - undoubtedly the biggest proponent of green OA - makes it clear that the subject of his efforts is articles that appear in peer-reviewed journals. Hence my usage of the term green OA to apply specifically to the subset of efforts to make works freely available that employs the "parasitic" model - I was in no way criticizing arXiv - which is doing things the way they should be done. "
(b) , comment https://chorasimilarity.wordpress.com/2015/05/28/eisen-parasitic-green-oa-is-the-apt-name-for-harnad-flawed-definition-of-green-oa-but-all-that-is-old-timers-disputes-the-future-is-here-and-different-than-both-green-and-gold-oa/#comment-11025 at the post [4']
[my boldface] "Virtually all arxiv deposits are submitted to and eventually published in refereed journals, Both the pre-refereeing preprint and the refereed postprint are shared on Arxiv. Arxiv is simply an access-provider, just as an institutional repository (IR) is. The only difference between an IR and Arxiv is that the IR is hosted by the author’s institution and Arxiv is hosted by Cornell. Otherwise they are absolutely identical, for both preprints and postprints. Same is true for deposits on authors’ personal websites."
Both (a) and (b) are very far from reality, because arXiv is not only a repository where people put things which are either pre*print* or post*print*, but something more: a model of scientific communication which works because we need it, which does not need publishers to function.
ArXiv say in their whitepaper: http://arxiv.org/help/support/whitepaper
"The e-print repository has transformed the scholarly communication infrastructure of multiple fields of physics and plays an increasingly prominent role in a unified set of global resources for physics, mathematics, computer science, and related disciplines. It is very firmly embedded in the research workflows of these subject domains and has changed the way in which material is shared, making science more democratic and allowing for the rapid dissemination of scientific findings. [...] Most scientists and researchers who post content on arXiv also submit their work for publication in traditional peer-reviewed journals. However, famously reclusive Russian mathematician Grigori Perelman's 2003 decision to post his proof of the 100-year-old Poincaré Conjecture solely in arXiv underscores the repository's importance and its role in transforming scholarly communication."
Now, let's see those numbers. Just how big is that arXiv thing compared to "megajournals"?
From  the total number of articles per year for "megajournals" is
(for 2015 the number represents "the articles published in the first quarter of the year multiplied by four" )
ArXiv: (based on counting the monthly submissions listed in )
2015: 100,628 (by the same procedure as in )
This shows that arXiv is 3 times bigger than all the megajournals at once, despite that:
- it is not a publisher
- does not ask for APC
- it covers fields far less attractive and prolific than the megajournals.
And that is because:
- arxiv answers to a real demand from researchers, to communicate fast and reliable their work to their fellows, in a way which respects their authorship
- also a reaction of support for what most of them think is "green OA", namely to put their work there where is away from the publishers locks.
- National Institutes of HealthSenior researcher (contractor), 2015 - present
- EvoMRI CommunicationsWeb-based science, 2011 - present
- Museum für Naturkunde BerlinResearcher, 2013 - 2015Semantic integration of the biodiversity literature
- Korea Basic Science Institute
- Fraunhofer Institute for Biomedical Engineering
- Max Planck Institute for Human Cognitive and Brain Sciences
- Friedrich Schiller University
- Humboldt University BerlinBiophysics, Medicine, Mathematics, Central and East Asian studies, 2001
- Université de Paris VIIBiochemistry, Biophysics
- 東北大学Medicine, Biophysics
- Universität des SaarlandesPhysics, Biomedical Engineering
- Universität DuisburgEconomics, Korean studies
Budapest Open Access Initiative | Budapest Open Access Initiative
The Budapest Open Access Initiative: an international effort to make research articles in all academic fields freely available on the intern
Official Google Blog: More spring cleaning out of season
More spring cleaning out of season. 11/22/2011 01:40:00 PM. This is our third blog post in our off-season spring cleaning series. To recap,
Newly Discovered Plant Bows Down and Buries Its Own Seeds | 80beats | Di...
Environment | Brazil | A botanist has discovered a new species of plant in eastern Brazil whose branches bend down upon bearing fruit and de
Is Massively Collaborative Scientific Publishing Possible?
Is Massively Collaborative Scientific Publishing Possible? Posted on September 7, 2011 by Stephen. The job of a newspaper columnist is to ag
Plagiarist or Puppet? US Rep. Carolyn Maloney’s reprehensible defense of...
a blog about genomes, DNA, evolution, open science, baseball and other important things
Michael Nielsen - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Michael Aaron Nielsen. Do you have a picture of Michael Nielsen? Please, post here. Born, January 4, 1974 (1974-01-04) (age 37). Residence,
Open Access unter Beschuss » Von kilian » netzpolitik.org
Dieselbe Person, die sich gerade als entschiedenster Gegner des Stop Online Piracy Acts (SOPA) im House Judiciary Committee profiliert, fäll
Study: Initial research manuscript rejection may lead to higher impact |...
A large-scale survey of the process for submitting research papers to scientific journals has revealed a surprising pattern: Manuscripts tha
The life of a PhD student in the land of mosquitoes: Elsevier added valu...
What I will show you in this post is hopefully the worst example of scientific editing by a publisher that you will ever see. As scientists
A response to one Elsevier employee, and an open letter to the rest
In a comment on the last post, an Elsevier employee wrote: Elsevier’s support for the Research Works Act comes down to a question of pref
You are Elsevier: Publisher boycotts, then and now
a blog about genomes, DNA, evolution, open science, baseball and other important things
The Tree of Life: Boycotting Elsevier is not enough - time to make them ...
Update: The original post here was written at midnight, with a cat on my lap. I thought this post conveyed some tongue in cheek aspect of th
Open and Shut?: BioMed Central opposes Research Works Act
BioMed Central strongly supports the NIH's role in enhancing open access through the operation of PubMed Central and through its Public