ArticleFrontiers in computational neuroscience2012
Decoupling the scholarly journal.
Article in Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
16 citing papers in PubMed.
- Living publications: How interactive artificial intelligence platforms are transforming research communication.Knee surgery, sports traumatology, arthroscopy : official journal of the ESSKA · 2026Review
- Scholarly publishing's hidden diversity: How exclusive databases sustain the oligopoly of academic publishers.PloS one · 2025Article
- Article
- Open science in energy research.Open research Europe · 2023Article
- An overview of innovations in the external peer review of journal manuscripts.Wellcome open research · 2022Review
- The limitations to our understanding of peer review.Research integrity and peer review · 2020Review
- Transparency in Decision Modelling: What, Why, Who and How?PharmacoEconomics · 2019Review
- The state of the art in peer review.FEMS microbiology letters · 2018Article
- A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review.F1000Research · 2017Review
- Scholarship: Beyond the paper.Nature · 2013Article
- Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2013Article
- The evaluation of research papers in the XXI century. The Open Peer Discussion system of the World Economics Association.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2012Article
- Aggregating post-publication peer reviews and ratings.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2012Article
- Multi-stage open peer review: scientific evaluation integrating the strengths of traditional peer review with the virtues of transparency and self-regulation.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2012Article
- An emerging consensus for open evaluation: 18 visions for the future of scientific publishing.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2012Article
- Open evaluation: a vision for entirely transparent post-publication peer review and rating for science.Frontiers in computational neuroscience · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Although many observers have advocated the reform of the scholarly publishing system, improvements to functions like peer review have been adopted sluggishly. We argue that this is due to the tight coupling of the journal system: the system's essential functions of archiving, registration, dissemination, and certification are bundled together and siloed into tens of thousands of individual journals. This tight coupling makes it difficult to change any one aspect of the system, choking out innovation. We suggest that the solution is the "decoupled journal (DcJ)." In this system, the functions are unbundled and performed as services, able to compete for patronage and evolve in response to the market. For instance, a scholar might deposit an article in her institutional repository, have it copyedited and typeset by one company, indexed for search by several others, self-marketed over her own social networks, and peer reviewed by one or more stamping agencies that connect her paper to external reviewers. The DcJ brings publishing out of its current seventeenth-century paradigm, and creates a Web-like environment of loosely joined pieces-a marketplace of tools that, like the Web, evolves quickly in response to new technologies and users' needs. Importantly, this system is able to evolve from the current one, requiring only the continued development of bolt-on services external to the journal, particularly for peer review.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.