Against the Grain

Volume 25 | Issue 4 Article 17

September 2013 ATG Interviews Peter Binfield Greg Tananbaum ScholarNext Consulting, [email protected]

Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.lib.purdue.edu/atg Part of the Library and Information Science Commons

Recommended Citation Tananbaum, Greg (2013) "ATG Interviews Peter Binfield," Against the Grain: Vol. 25: Iss. 4, Article 17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7771/2380-176X.6569

This document has been made available through Purdue e-Pubs, a service of the Purdue University Libraries. Please contact [email protected] for additional information. I Hear the Train A Comin’ — An Interview with Peter Binfield, Co-Founder & Publisher, PeerJ Column Editor: Greg Tananbaum (ScholarNext Consulting) www.scholarnext.com

Pete Binfield has worked in the academic ONE) where decisions are made entirely by publishing world for almost 20 years. He has working academics as opposed to internal staff held positions at IoPP, Kluwer Academic, editors; placing our technical infrastructure Springer, Sage, and most recently the Public entirely in the cloud and using open source Library of Science (PLOS). At PLOS he ran software wherever possible; building our own PLOS ONE, and helped develop it into the software for our entire product suite (meaning largest journal in the world. Pete left PLOS we do not have to pay ongoing fees to third-par- One last year to co-found PeerJ, an innovative ty peer-review vendors, or publication platform open access publisher that has generated a providers for example); creating workflows good deal of buzz. I had the chance to catch and internal tools which minimize labor costs up with him recently. as much as possible and so on. Secondly, we are not aiming to make a high-profit margin, as might be the case at What is PeerJ? an established commercial publisher with a PB: PeerJ is an Open Access publisher of historically high-profit margin. We have a scholarly articles. We aim to drive the costs of charge in excess of $2000. How can you core belief that we want to reduce any costs publishing down, while improving the overall explain this disparity? to authors and to the scientific community as publishing experience, and providing authors PB: Well, some journals actually charge much as possible. We expect to do this by with a publication venue suitable for the 21st more than $5,000, although an average price having a self-sustaining business model (which Century. is often quoted as around $900 (and there are our current model is) and to use that base to We have two publications serving the a great number of OA journals which are free explore and develop alternate revenue streams Biological and Medical sciences: “PeerJ” (a to publish in). Even with that broad range which might ultimately allow us to reduce peer-reviewed academic journal) and “PeerJ though, there are some publishers who operate author costs even further. PrePrints” (an innovative “preprint server”). a very respectable business with prices that are Why will authors want to publish with Authors pay for a lifetime membership, which very low (for example, Hindawi is on record as PeerJ? having an income of about $600 per published gives them the ability to publish their articles PB: There are many reasons: with us for free. article — http://scholarlyoa.com/2013/04/04/ First of all, if you have become a paid up Our tag line is: “Your Peers, Your Science. hindawis-profits-are-larger-than-elsevi- ers/#comment-16340). Member of PeerJ then you never have to make Academic Publishing Is Evolving” and our core another publication decision (based on ability To explain the PeerJ model — authors beliefs are to “keep innovating,” “remember to pay) ever again. Literally, for just $299, become Lifetime Members of PeerJ for a who we serve” and “pass on the savings.” We lifetime fee, you can publish as many articles single low price, and once they are a member, are committed to improving the process of with us as you wish, each year, without having they can then publish future papers with us scholarly publishing. to worry about the costs. for free, for life (provided the articles pass Where did the idea come from? peer review etc). Each co-author on a PeerJ We are fast! We have already seen several PB: The original idea came from my article must have a paying membership, and reviews from our authors who have extolled the co-Founder, Jason Hoyt (who used to be the $99 is the “base” price (entitling an author to virtues of first decisions in less time than their Chief Scientist at Mendeley). As a post doc, publish one article per year with us). There are last pre-submission enquiry took (we routinely he had been frustrated by the inaccessibility of two higher membership tiers of $199 and $299 get first decisions back to authors in less than journal content and the slow pace of change (which respectively allow an author to publish 20 days). And we aren’t just fast, we are also towards an Open Access model. While at two articles per year; or unlimited articles respectful of academics, and of their time (for Mendeley, he also came to realise that one of per year). Full information can be found at: example, authors do not need to reformat their the things holding OA back was the high costs https://peerj.com/pricing/. references when submitting to us — we do it for them when they are accepted, something (to the author), when in fact things could prob- Therefore, if there are five co-authors on a which has been extremely well received). ably be done a lot cheaper with a more efficient paper, who all sign up for the “$99 For Life” infrastructure, and perhaps a new business Basic PeerJ membership, then for that first Our site is beautiful, modern, and well model. Ultimately, it seemed apparent to him paper we at least receive $495 in revenue (sub- designed. As compared to more traditional that there was a gap in the whole publishing sequent publications by the same co-authors publication sites, we have been described as market — nobody was taking a lean start-up are free). Even when you figure in the fact that “like leaving a PC for Mac. Dumping your approach to publishing. future publications will probably include new Blackberry for an iPhone 5.” Academics value So he came up with this great marketing co-authors (who then become paying mem- beauty and clear design just as much as anyone line “If we can set a goal to sequence the Hu- bers), it is clear that we receive a lower revenue else — just look at all those Macs in the hands man Genome for $99, then why shouldn’t we per publication than many other publishers. of academics! demand the same goal for the publication of However, there are a couple of things which We provide a wealth of data and metadata research?” and put up an anonymous Website means that we can make this work. First of all, — for example although all our articles show to see if it generated any interest. I spotted the with the experience I gained at PLOS ONE, “Article Level Metrics,” we go the extra step Website, but although we had known each other and that Jason gained at Mendeley (which and also provide the full list of referring sites for a couple of years, I didn’t know who was has an extremely high volume of users and and their traffic contributions (something behind it. Then a few days later Jason emailed content), we have been able to build systems which is largely unique among publishers); we me out of the blue to ask if I knew anyone who which are designed to be as streamlined and provide extremely rich metadata which means might be interested in working on a project like automated as possible, so as to reduce our costs that our articles will be as widely indexed and this. You know the answer to that question... as far as possible. Some examples of how we discoverable as possible; we have a powerful PeerJ charges authors as little as $99 to have done this include adopting a “community faceted search engine which combines results publish articles. Other open access journals resourced” editorial structure (similar to PLOS continued on page 67

66 Against the Grain / September 2013 For a library, the advantage of option #1 is ates rigorous peer review and is read widely I Hear the Train A Comin’ that there is very little administration to worry by their peers. As such, the majority of the from page 66 about once the memberships are purchased needs of the majority of authors are already (they simply receive Member “activation addressed by the megajournal model, and so from articles, preprint articles, and Editor/ codes” to distribute to whom they see fit). I see no reason why authors won’t continue Member biographies, etc. The advantage of #2 is that they don’t need to to publish there, in ever greater numbers. Almost every aspect of our publishing worry about the politics of who receives this If we assume that a group of megajournals environment is fresh and innovative — for benefit (as people are given the credit as and will grow over the next few years, and each example, we have a preprint server that authors when they naturally come to use us). will publish as many as 10,000 or more arti- can use to work up drafts; we operate optional An advantage to both options is that they cles per year (hence collectively publishing Open Peer-Review (meaning that reviewers are represent a “one off” purchase for a library (i.e., the majority of the content which is currently given the option of providing their name; and there is no recurring commitment, as you might spread amongst 25,000 titles), then even in authors are given the option of reproducing experience with an institutional membership that scenario it is my belief that there will their review history when published); we pro- from the likes of BMC or PLoS; or from a still be a group of “top tier” journals which vide members with beautiful profile pages that subscription journal) — you pay once and your will be able to survive and thrive. Authors register and credit every interaction they might faculty benefit forever. Because of this “one and readers do value many of the specialist have with us; even our PDFs are designed for off” payment aspect, the monies can come out services those journals can support; they reading onscreen with single column layouts of different budgets to normal serial budgets or recognize the brand; they have an affinity to and ample white space. from “end of year” budget money for example . them perhaps through their society or through If an author wants a modern, cost effective, Institutions who sign up in this way receive the Editorial Baord and so on. However the respectful, beautiful, fast, innovative, effective regular reporting; an admin interface with number of journals in that category is quite Open Access publishing experience, then “enterprise level” tools; a page on our site low, in my opinion, and certainly less than PeerJ is where they want to publish. explaining (for the benefit of faculty) what has 1,000. Why should librarians pay attention to been bought; marketing materials; personal Therefore, I imagine a publishing eco- PeerJ? support, etc. system developing in the next ten years, PB: Many librarians are now looking to Many institutions have already taken up one made up of a reasonably small collection fund open access publications for their faculty, of these options (for example Duke, Arizona of “megajournals” (perhaps around 100 in however with a typical APC fee in the range State, Univ. of Birmingham, Univ. of Not- number) and a group of “other” journals (the $1000-$2000 (for every single publication) this tingham, Newfoundland; Trinity University, ones we might recognize today as being “top has the potential to be very costly. I have seen etc). If anyone is interested in discussing one quality”) numbering less than 1,000. many “OA Funds” at Universities which have of these options, they can make an enquiry via: What are PeerJ’s biggest challenges over total finding sufficient to cover just a small https://peerj.com/pricing/institutions/. the next 12-18 months? handful of APC publications. And of course, You were involved with PLOS One as it PB: I think our biggest challenges re- this is a fee which has to be paid every single became grew to publish more articles than any late to the fact that we are a new publisher, time a new article is published. other journal by publishing science that was with a new kind of author payment model. With PeerJ’s model however, a library can technically sound regardless of any “wow” Therefore, we need to promote our message fund PeerJ Memberships for a large number factor. In a similar manner, PeerJ evaluates as widely as possible, and we need to do a of their faculty for a single low price. Liter- articles based only on an objective deter- good job of explaining both our model, and ally for the cost of three or four APC funded mination of scientific and methodological the advantages of publishing with us. This publications or a single year of access to one soundness, not on subjective determinations will naturally happen of course, as more and or two subscription journals, a library can buy of impact, novelty, or interest. How many more people experience our process, however lifetime memberships for hundreds of their “mega-journals” can scholarly publishing it is a fact that the majority of academia is faculty members! sustain? currently unaware of us; of the benefits of our lifetime membership model; and of the As such, we have heard from librarians that PB: That is a good question, and one I often get asked. many other benefits that we represent when PeerJ is a very attractive way to spend limited choosing where to publish their research. It is Open Access funds to give their faculty access There are approximately 25,000 journals our challenge to get our message out there and to a high-quality open access venue and hence publishing approximately 1.7 million arti- show to people that we are a better alternative to hopefully change their publication behavior cles every year (of which approximately 1.1 when deciding where to publish. going forwards. And those memberships, once million are in the biological/medical/health purchased, are good for life, meaning that those areas that PLOS ONE is strong in) and last What’s the deal with the blue monkey? individuals can publish with us, for free, for- year PLOS ONE published almost 24,000 PB: Actually, we ran a competition and ever and a library has no ongoing commitment articles. Therefore, PLOS ONE, which is the blue monkey was given a name — “Char- to continual payments. only seven years old, is already lie” (after Charles Darwin, on What is PeerJ’s institutional membership publishing approximately 2% of whose birthday we published policy? its market (and it is still grow- our first articles). ing year on year). Of course, Charlie represents a few PB: We have two options for libraries it doesn’t take many journals things for our company — who want to fund PeerJ memberships for capable of publishing 2% of first of all, he symbolizes sci- their faculty: the market to publish the entire ence (he is holding a pencil 1. A simple “bulk purchase” of individ- corpus, but your question was and a test tube); secondly, he ual memberships which an institution more nuanced than that — how demonstrates that we do things can then hand out to their faculty as they many can the market sustain? “differently” to more traditional see fit, and/or In this regard, we also have to academic publishing companies 2. A “pre-payment account” approach ask what it is that authors value which might use an abstract or where an institution deposits an amount from their publication experience, and what typographic logo; thirdly, it is an anthropo- of money with PeerJ. As authors from proportion of authors would therefore value morphic image which aids recognition and the institution submit to us, they then what a “megajournal” can provide. retention in social media situations; and get the option of paying for their mem- Without going into great detail, most au- fourthly, who doesn’t like blue monkeys berships from that account (which auto- thors want to publish rapidly, at a reasonable after all? matically draws down as that happens). price, in a respectable publication that oper-

Against the Grain / September 2013 67