A revenue-sharing ‘Platinum’ journal (AZojono)

There’s an article, Financial rewards for nanotech science authors and peer reviewers, in Nanotechnology Now, Australia, May 22, 2007.

Abstract: The open-access Nanotech Science Journal (AZoJono) confirms revenue share with authors and peer reviewers at Nanotech 2007 Santa Clara, California.

Excerpts:

The AZo Journal of Nanotechnology Online, residing on http://www.azonano.com has recently notified all authors and peer reviewers of their revenue share earnings for the last 12 month period.

Authors of the most popular papers have earned in excess of $500 for their contributions under the AZoNetwork Patented OARS (Open Access Revenue Share) scheme and peer reviewers have earned between $100 and $500 for their efforts.

Due to the free and open access nature of the journal and the size of the AZoNano.com online audience, which now exceeds 350,000 monthly visitor sessions, the most popular AZoJono paper has been viewed more than 17,000 times in the last 12 months.

Intrigued, I visited the webpage for AZojono – Journal of Nanotechnology Online and the AZoNano Information page. The latter provided access to information about the Founding Sponsors of the host organization: Cenamps, based in the North East of England, and NanoVic, based in Victoria, Australia.

Excerpts from the FAQ ‘s page about AZojono:

What is the “OARS” publishing model?

* Authors contribute a paper.
* The paper is peer reviewed by a qualified editorial panel.
* The paper is published on-line
* The publication is 100% free to access on a global basis.
* The authors and peer reviewers then receive a percentage of the revenue attributable to the publication.

OARS – Open Access Rewards System

Can I also use the published work on my own website?

Yes, authors may post copies on their personal or institution/company web sites.

The revenue distribution model may favour “populist” general articles, isn’t this a negative?

It may be the case that “review” or “generalist” articles and papers are attractive to authors who wish to maximise their earning potential. However, although the subject areas may be broad, it is the responsibility of the editors to ensure the scientific quality of all the papers and articles approved for publication and to ensure there is not substantial duplication in the journal content.

Will the payment of authors “taint” the scientific purity of the publication?

We don’t believe this to be the case. Authors can request that their earnings are paid to their Institutions if they wish.

Will I be able to see the popularity of specific articles?

Yes. We will publish the page view popularity of all published works.

Still intrigued, I then visited the Journal Papers page. So far, for 2007, only one article appears: Multi-Functional Nanoparticles and Their Role in Cancer Drug Delivery – A Review, by Priya Pathak and V. K. Katiyar, published 11 May 2007. During 2006, only 3 articles were published. During 2005, the total was larger: 11 articles.

Then, I recognized the name of the author of one of the 2005 papers: Edna Einsiedel, author of In the Public Eye: The Early Landscape of Nanotechnology among Canadian and U.S. Publics, published 30 Dec 2005.

As I already knew, Edna Einsiedel has published a number of articles that have been indexed by PubMed. (However, none of these were to the article in Azojono, because it’s not indexed by PubMed).

A Google Scholar search for the key words “Einsiedel” “Public Eye * Early” yielded a relevant citation and a notation Cited by 2, but not a link to the article. Clicking on the “Web Search” button for the citation did provide the relevant link.

My conclusion? This is an intriguing model for a ‘Platinum’ (no-fee) journal, but the promise of revenue sharing doesn’t seem to be attracting many publishable articles (after a promising beginning in 2005, including the publication of Edna Einsiedel’s article).

Advertisements

1 Comment »

  1. tillje said

    Comment received from Edna Einsiedel, and posted with her permission:

    I made the submission precisely because like you, I’m a big
    supporter of open access and thought this would help to
    support the journal. I was pleasantly surprised to learn
    they were providing authors with some “return” which I
    thought was rather unusual; I also declined this in any case
    and expect these funds will be put to good use.

RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: