Paper detail

Rapid, Impartial and Comprehensive (RIC) publishing: A new concept for scientific journals

Publishing scientific journals governed by editors relying on anonymous peer reviewing is slow (even one round of reviewing involves several communications between authors, editor and reviewers), partial (arguments of authors can hardly overrule those of reviewers) and not using all available scientific material (even the most thorough and insightful reviews remain for the eyes of authors and editors only). Here I propose a new concept for scientific journals that ensures rapid, impartial and comprehensive (RIC) publishing. RIC concept is based on implementation of two novel publishing principles: the first (rapid) editorial screening of a submitted manuscript should result in its either "rejection" or "acceptance with optional revisions", and, in the latter case, the optionally revised (taking into account open reviews) paper should be published along with all (positive and negative) reviews, presenting thereby to the scientific community all available scientific material on the topic in question.

preprint2011arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.