A Modest Proposal – The Open Journal of Astrophysics

Following on from yesterday’s piece, I thought I’d make a quick suggestion.

Astrophysics has taken the lead for many years in opening up access to scientific publications – all publications of any merit are available for free on the internet via the arXiv and, in my opinion, the traditional journals are already more-or-less redundant even without considering their “astronomical” cost. The one thing that seems a consistent objection to dispensing with journals altogether is the element of peer review.

However, yesterday’s news that many of us are probably going to have to pay up front fees to publish papers (at thousands of pounds  a pop) will no doubt have convinced many that the government’s decision is potentially ruinous for science. I think it’s time for astrophysics to lead the way again.

My suggestion is that we set up a quick-and-easy trial system to circumvent the traditional publishing route. The basic is that authors who submit papers to the arXiv can have their papers refereed by the community, outside the usual system of traditional journals. I’m thinking of a website on which authors would simply have to post their arXiv ID and a request for peer review. Once accepted, the author would be allowed to mark the arXiv posting as “refereed” and an electronic version would be made available for free on the website.

Although there are many issues to be sorted out,  a limited trial of The Open Journal of Astrophysics could I think happen very soon, perhaps even before the REF.

This idea would require community support setting it up (and doing the refereeing/administration)  and it would probably only get off the ground if sufficient senior astronomers get on board. It will no doubt also take money to get it going. However, I feel sufficiently strongly about this that I’m prepared to stump up £10k from my own pocket just to get it started.

If anyone has ideas about how to take this project forward, is willing to help with technical expertise, or if any prominent astronomers would simply like to add their name in support of the idea please do so through the comments box below.  Any further pledges of financial support would of course also be welcome.

And please pass this message on via Twitter/email/whatever, so I can gauge the level of support.

About these ads

94 Responses to “A Modest Proposal – The Open Journal of Astrophysics”

  1. [...] ways to incorporate the stamp of approval lent by peer review into the Arxiv system (I see Peter has written about it too). I grumbled, and they came up with an [...]

  2. A good suggestion, and it’s really nice to see someone putting his money where his mouth is.

    Some quick thoughts:

    “The one thing that seems a consistent objection to dispensing with journals altogether is the element of peer review.”

    Indeed.

    “My suggestion is that we set up a quick-and-easy trial system to circumvent the traditional publishing route. The idea is to set up a system whereby authors who submit papers to the arXiv can have their papers refereed. I’m thinking of a website on which authors would simply have to post their arXiv ID and a request for peer review. “

    So far, so good. Or, to paraphrase Robert Pirsig, it’s OK as far as it goes, but does it go far enough?

    “Once accepted, the author would be allowed to mark the arXiv posting as “refereed””

    The obvious problem here is that crackpot A referees the paper from crackpot B and says it is OK. Yes, believe me, this will happen. And as soon as it does, it will become the poster child for those who will have said “I told you so” when claiming that only traditional journals can guarantee quality.

    If this is worth doing, it is worth doing right.

    The missing ingredient is some respected authority who maintains a list of acceptable referees and only these referees are allowed to referee papers for the website. Even arXiv has had an endorsement system for years now! I also think the respected authority should mark it refereed, not the author himself. Otherwise, it will be hijacked by crackpots. (Yes, the world is full of them. The only reasons there are so few on arXiv are because of the endorsement system and because arXiv has some minimal review, which usually consists of forcing crackpot papers into the “general physics” category.)

    “and an electronic version would be made available for free on the website.”

    In addition to the arXiv version? (Yes, I think that would be a good idea, even if the two are identical.)

    “Although there are many issues to be sorted out, a limited trial of The Open Journal of Astrophysics could I think happen very soon, perhaps even before the REF.”

    To paraphrase Einstein, the sooner the better, but not sooner. Yes, it should go ahead with high priority, but anything half-baked will hurt more than it will help.

    Keep in mind that while people with permanent positions risk little by publishing here, those without can afford to only if the respect (which might take some time to get established) is comparable to that of respected traditional journals. Any loophole which allows lower quality papers than in respected traditional journals will be bad. Any loophole which allows obvious crackpot papers will be deadly.

    Of course, submissions from senior astronomers will increase the credibility greatly.

    Again, the problem is not the individual paper. It usually takes just a few seconds to notice that a paper is crackpot. The point is that, to take the example I have mentioned many times, no-one will spend even a few seconds each on 4000 papers. Publication in a respected journal (of whatever type) is, and should be, a useful first filter for judging quality.

    “This idea would require community support setting it up (and doing the refereeing/administration)”

    Crucial is that the administration is not only the technical administration of the webserver etc but also—this is probably the most important point—maintaining the list of accepted referees.

    “it would probably only get off the ground if sufficient senior astronomers get on board”

    Indeed. Not all of them read blogs, so please spread the word.

    “It will no doubt also take money to get it going.”

    Running the website could probably be done by voluntary effort, but of a “can go away at any time” nature. Perhaps the other administration as well. I think it could actually get off the ground without money if the right people are able and willing to put in enough of their time.

    The best thing would be to convince the RAS that this is the way to go, and perhaps even pay a couple of people full time to do the technical and editorial administration. Do UK astronomers really want to be in competition with the RAS? If there is no choice, then there is no choice, but I think a significant effort should be made to get the RAS on board. The best people to do this would probably be senior astronomers. Get them on board! And keep in mind that, apart from perhaps email, one shouldn’t assume too much familiarity with the intertubes. Yes, the Regis Astronomer has his own blog, but the Astronomer Royal does not.

    “If anyone has ideas about how to take this project forward, is willing to help with technical expertise, or if any prominent astronomers would simply like to add their name in support of the idea please do so through the comments box below.”

    Keep in mind that, for a variety of reasons, some people might prefer to contact you via email rather than via the comment box on the blog. Make sure you read and reply to your emails. Nothing makes a worse impression than someone who doesn’t reply to legitimate emails.

    • “The obvious problem here is that crackpot A referees the paper from crackpot B and says it is OK. Yes, believe me, this will happen. And as soon as it does, it will become the poster child for those who will have said “I told you so” when claiming that only traditional journals can guarantee quality.”
      When this happens, give me a shout and I can probably find you more than a few references to crackpot papers that have already made it into traditional journals. It doesn’t happen a lot admittedly, but it happens, and it means that it’s going to be hard to make a poster child out of the first time this happens.
      If it happens a lot, then it might need more interesting trust metrics to prevent in future, but I don’t think it’s an unsolvable problem.

      • I agree that there are a few crackpot papers in respected journals. Objectively, one crackpot paper in a new journal doesn’t necessarily demonstrate lack of sufficient quality control. However, this whole discussion is not about objectivity, at least from the point of view of the publishers. I thus have no doubt that the first example of a crackpot paper in a new journal will be used in the manner I described.

  3. Great idea. And for what it’s I would submit to such an open journal, and would be happy to do some refereeing also. Oh ya, and you got a RT!
    :)
    Evan

  4. Bernard Jones Says:

    I think this is a very good idea. Not new of course but nothing happened in the past probably because of lack of a clear driving force and a host of arguments as to why it might be a waste of time. Most of the counter arguments seem to have been focussed on the role of publishing houses in providing “respectabililty” for the purpose of evaluating the worth of a paper without having to read it. Some weird combinations of Journal Rankings and H-indexes seems sufficient to determine the future of research.

    The issue is perhaps how to get it started and and then how to raise its profile to the point where its “measure of impact” is high enough that job allocators and grant givers will respect it.

    There are two interesting case studies which serve to illustrate what this might involve.

    The Public Library of Science “Biology” at

    http://www.plosbiology.org/static/information.action

    PLoS Biology is open but not free: the “publication” fee is US$2900!

    Our own Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics (JCAP) run by IOP and SISSA (who handle the refereing):

    http://jcap.sissa.it/jcap/help/helpLoader.jsp?pgType=about

    and which is not entirely “open”.

    There is of course no reason why publishers should be involved and nor is there any reason to “re-print” the paper in some electronic book format – we already have arXiv. Apart from management (editors, referees and the like) what might be needed is a user interface like those of JCAP and PLoS Biology which provides better access to material than the antiquated ADS search engine. Such a web page might “be” the journal inasmuch as ADS is for scientists today. A starting point for this might well be to talk to the people at ADS (eg Edwin Henneken: https://sites.google.com/site/ehenneken/).

    For arXiv to become an accredited “journal” it should probably look like a journal.

  5. I perfectly agree with your criticism of the gold standard: It provides open access, but in a way that s good for journals and not good for science.

    Your proposal comes very close to what I’ve coded up already: http://paperrater.org. It automatically reads the submissions to the arXiv (our open access model), and makes them accessible to review from the entire community. It’s is not a journal (and was never meant to as one). It is rather a layer on top of the distribution channel arXiv that provides the feedback and quality assessment currently associated with journal-based peer review.

    Just last week (during http://dotastronomy.com), we discussed several interesting concepts of how to make this kind of review mechanism more appealing to the community. Most of them relate to the public recognition good review should get. These ideas are in an early stage, and need to be refined, but they can certainly be implemented with a modest amount of work. I’d be happy to discuss any of this in more detail.

    • Having just found paperrater from following along with the #dotastro last week (and seeing it mentioned this afternoon on twitter), I have to say that publicizing, promoting, and establishing a “critical mass” sized community around existing and well featured projects like yours are much more important at this time. Once that community exists, it proves:

      1. People will take the time and effort to review papers online (transparently!) for the good of the paper and larger community

      2. Open Access is not just a fad or a flash-in-the-pan type trend

      3. Old-school critics can look at the reviews/comments and judge their scientific merit/critiquing skills themselves and see that there’s nothing to worry about.

      In my mind, in all these discussions and ponderings there’s one *crucial* piece missing: any statement or concern of any kind about what the arXiv wants! Adding anything on their end is going to take time and people power (which equate to money). That’s why I really see things like paperrater having the most immediate impact, since it sits on top of arXiv and is able to provide a much greater value to their service.

      • Ryan, that’s the key point. While arXiv seems to be sympathetic with external sites using their service (they provide an API to interface with it), to me it appears much faster to develop on top of arXiv than in tight collaboration with arXiv.

        Once critical mass, with all the benefits you outlined, is reached, arXiv can then decide to introduce the PaperRater contributions (e.g. the reviewer reputation score we’re currently developing). This way we can make the change and experiment with new ideas without a big overhead.

  6. Anton Garrett Says:

    If we are going to do this then arXiv should remove its ban on papers from nonacademic addresses (like mine is since I quit the universities). Or at least remove its ban on such papers that request refereeing. I would seriously contemplate helping Peter with sponsorship except for this.

    • telescoper Says:

      There is a way around the ban, which is to find someone willing to endorse you as a contributor to the arXiv. I guess it is there to prevent too many crackpot articles being submitted, but it assumes that no crackpots work in universities and everyone who doesn’t work in a unversity is a crackpot.

    • I have to agree with Anton here (we probably agree on more things than we disagree on). AFAIK, and speaking from personal experience, there is not a ban per se, but probably some sort of filter. I also don’t like the lack of response from arXiv in such administrative matters. Basically, a user is at their mercy and since they have a monopoly (in general a good thing in cases like this), it is unclear what too strong criticism could bring. I submitted my last paper from my current email address, which has been “registered” (whatever that means) at arXiv for years. My paper at first ended up in some sort of limbo. I asked, but got no response. I then forwarded the letter of acceptance from MNRAS (I didn’t even submit it to arXiv before it was accepted (and it said “accepted for publication by MNRAS in the abstract)—obviously a problem if the idea is to put stuff on arXiv before acceptance should become the general rule) and it soon magically left limbo. No explanation was provided and there is, AFAIK, no way to get one. At least in astrophysics, the arXiv moderators are anonymous. There is no system of appeals. Normally I don’t mind being compared to Nobel-Prize winners, but complaining too loudly about arXiv can move one dangerously close to Brian Josephson territory. :-) With a journal, one can always appeal to someone on the board, or the editor-in-chief. If all else fails, one can submit to another journal. I think it is good to have healthy competition here, with more than one respected journal in the field, but with something like arXiv I think that would be a bad idea.

      While arXiv has proven its worth and there is a prospect of long-term stability now that Cornell is hosting it, it still has a way to go with regard to openness, transparency etc. Note that there is a handful of people who publish stuff in the leading astronomy journals with no institutional affiliation. My view is that if it is good enough for MNRAS it should be good enough for arXiv, but this is not automatic. If arXiv is to be used as some sort of engine for the submission process, then even this argument won’t work, since the paper will have to go to arXiv first. This is a problem which non-crackpot academics will never encounter and thus might be oblivious to, but as Anton points out it needs to be solved. I’m certainly willing to help where I can, but these problems with arXiv need to be resolved first.

      But maybe arXiv shouldn’t be involved until after publication, at least from the point of view of the new journal. Some people don’t like to put stuff on arXiv before acceptance, and some well known institutes actually have policies forbidding this. Sure, if people want to put stuff on arXiv before acceptance, that’s fine, and they can just give arXiv the reference number. However, all that is necessary for refereeing is that the editor knows where the paper is and how to get it to the referee. One could even email papers, but the author could just put a link, either password-protected or impossible to find without knowing where it is, to the paper and give this information to the author, who would pass it on to the referee. It would be easy to set up a webserver to handle this if people want to upload their stuff there (this might be a better idea anyway, since then there is some record of what version of which paper was available when to whom etc). If this route is taken, all the journal would have to do is make sure that the paper can get to arXiv after acceptance.

    • @Anton: Have you tried to get an endorsement? (Note that not everyone who is allowed to put stuff on arXiv is allowed to be an endorser; one needs a certain number of recent papers etc.)

      I agree that some sort of filter is necessary, and in principle the idea of endorsement is OK. I would think, though, that there should be a “once in, always in” rule which holds until obvious abuse (e.g. crackpot submissions) occur. (There might be a problem in verifying that a person submitting from a non-academic address is indeed coming from the same person who put stuff on arXiv a few years ago. Without some sort of hard-and-fast checks (ID cards in the UK anyone?), identify theft is relatively easy.)

      • Anton Garrett Says:

        Philip: No I haven’t tried getting endorsed. I gave up publishing in refereed journals some time ago becaue all I really want to publish now is a book that is currently in gestation, plus the occasional conference contribution.

        Peter’s suggestion will need some way to prevent authors submitting simultaneously to multiple online-only journals. Maybe online-only journal editors could put with the arXiv version of a paper a statement that they are considering it, and any paper with more than one editor response could be thown off the arXiv.

      • “Peter’s suggestion will need some way to prevent authors submitting simultaneously to multiple online-only journals. Maybe online-only journal editors could put with the arXiv version of a paper a statement that they are considering it, and any paper with more than one editor response could be thown off the arXiv.”

        Again, we shouldn’t try to change too many things at once, and this doesn’t need changing. That is, any new journal should, like most journals now, require a statement that the paper is not submitted anywhere else.

        I don’t know if the arXiv should be involved at this level, especially since, for reasons I’ve outlined, it might be a good idea to involve arXiv only after acceptance (unless the authors themselves choose otherwise). I think it would be fair enough for a journal to require “submitted to XXX” in the abstract if the paper is on arXiv before acceptance.

      • In the spirit of not changing too many things, I don’t see why arXiv should be necessarily involved. One could bypass the closed aspects of arXiv with viXra, or allow direct submission. I don’t know if this would result in an unbearable load of crackpot submissions, but editorial rejection would be okay by me.

        On the other hand, hosting the journal without using the arXiv would not be hard. ArXiv, after all, was written by a bunch of physicists with some knowledge of Perl, or shell scritping or whatever it was.

        An example from mathematics of something along the lines suggested is the Journal of Integer Sequences. It is free and open, authors retain copyright, they developed a LaTeX style, they have a kind of endorsement system (for major results) and they have respected people on the editorial board.

      • viXra seems to be mostly a crackpot haven, so best to have no association with that at all.

        Yes, it could be done without arXiv at all. I think there are two reasons for using arXiv, at least after acceptance: 1) Why re-invent the wheel? Also, arXiv has gone beyond the spare-time preprint server it once was. 2) arXiv is a one-stop shop, and people are used to looking for papers only on arXiv. An additional place is a pain, especially since some papers will be at both places.

  7. I think this is a good idea- and sorely needed, given recent events!

    I personally dont like seeing papers appearing on astro-ph before they are refereed. Thus ideally people should be able to submit their PDF to the “journal” website, and this is reviewed, in a similar way to how the big journals operate now. Then once “accepted” it could be put on arXiv. Of course you couldn’t stop people posting them earlier, but for those of us in fields where this is frowned upon, having the choice would be nice! Coding this up isn’t hard – I would certainly be happy to help if required (although I am sure more qualified people exist!!).

    As mentioned above in order to become accepted and recognised it would be good for it to have some consistent style- e.g. a LaTeX template that people would be required to use.

  8. Hi Peter, do you envision authors still writing papers ‘as if’ they were going to be submitted to MNRAS, ApJ, etc. Or would you like to see a brand new OJA template/format? Could the journal also accommodate code, scripts, and so-on that authors want to make open source?

    In the case of object catalogue aggregators like VizieR, I think they only include catalogues that appear in ‘published’ papers… so the OJA would have to be officially recognised in that sense too.

    • Obviously if it is a new journal one shouldn’t use the template from an existing journal. One could create a new one. Better would be to get the RAS on board so we can continue using the MNRAS template. (A&A is more difficult since there is not just one organization behind it like with MNRAS and the RAS.)

  9. Thanks for this Peter. I am impressed by your commitment.

    In case useful: Antony Lewis and I looked into this 5 years ago with library experts and did a community questionnaire

    http://discovery.ucl.ac.uk/5102/1/RIOJA_questionnaire_survey_report_final.pdf

    and made a prototype journal including the technical capability to interact with arxiv papers (Antony would explain better):

    http://www.ucl.ac.uk/ls/rioja/about/

    with a test site (not fully configured):

    http://arxivjournal.org/index.php/cc/issue/current

    My interpretation of the feedback coming from the questionnaire and from talking to journal editors at that time was that the community was not particularly interested in launching into some new fangled risky thing “just” for the sake of open access. But hopefully your suggestion is more timely, given Willets’ new plans.

    Can we now address these biggest issues?
    (i) The new system needs to be sustainable, including long-term funding for (a member of?) staff to keep the software running and updated (people were not convinced that a network of volunteers would be sustainable).
    (ii) This will cost money and so people will have to pay at some point, possibly of order 100 pounds per article rather than 1000 though.
    (iii) We need to do this with a learned society (e.g. the RAS) or risk causing learned societies serious financial problems.
    (iv) We need a prestigious editorial board and chief editor.

    I think all of this points to investing any money in helping a learned society to work out how feasible it would be to switch to running their publishing to be in-house, using overlay software (some of which is already developed).

    • telescoper Says:

      Sarah,

      I didn’t know about your study until Antony emailed me this morning about it. In any case times have changed.

      I agree that to make it sustainable would probably require a fee to be paid, but £100 is the upper end of the cost range I’d envisage.

      I’d also like to see the RAS embrace this idea, but MNRAS generates a considerable revenue for them and they might be reluctant to do anything that endagners that income stream.

      Peter

    • I agree with the small-Roman points. I’m sure there would be more than enough highly qualified applicants if a job offer for a permanent job were made, rather than “funded for two years with some vague undefined possibility of extension”. If this isn’t (yet) feasible, then it has to be done part time by people who have other sources of income (or full time by someone who is independently wealthy).

      I still think paying per article is not the way to go because it creates a conflict of interest. Channelling a fraction of the money going to pay publishers now is the way to go. No one should have to decide between paying for an article and paying for something else.

      I recommend Professor Peter Coles as Editor-in-Chief.

      I’m glad you agree that we should at least try to get the RAS on board rather than starting a journal to compete with MNRAS.

  10. For this to work, a few things are needed. First, a decent and enforced peer review system. Second, an editorial system which can reject (or grade) papers. Third, a publishing system (which can be build on arxiv). Fourth, a citing system. Fifth, a financial model. You will probably find that some parts of the existing publishing system make sense and should be retained. The cost will not be zero (my guess would be 200-300k pa), and arxiv might appreciate a financial contribution if you will piggy-back on their system. STFC may be willing to fund it if this saves them money. All of this is manageable, and the main risk is that it would quickly outgrow the resources.

  11. Peter – I agree with your suggested approach and I also think that something lightweight (i.e. just linking to arXiv IDs) built quickly would suffice for now.

    This feels like an extension of http://paperrater.org, Peter Melchior – is the code available for your application anywhere public?

  12. Rob Ivison Says:

    Your Modest Proposal has my support, Peter, unless RAS does the decent thing, and quickly.

    I would be quite prepared to publish in a journal established along the lines you suggest, modulo some of the ideas already put forward, just so long as you can formulate a sufficiently attractive LaTeX style file, with lashings of opportunities to be seriously retentive ;-)

  13. Great idea and I would be in. One issue though: what if nobody steps up to review your paper (because it’s long, bad, or for no reason at all, just because no one is willing to take time)? One of the features of current journals is the guaranteed referee.

    • It can’t be just voluntary refereeing. There has to be an editor who gets papers refereed, as now.

      We want to get rid of extortion (i.e. overpriced journals, “gold” access etc). We don’t want to throw out the good things which have evolved over time in academic journals.

  14. I agree with many of the commenters that this is a nice idea. But as Sarah points out, it’s important to remember that this stuff does cost money, especially if peer review would be in some way compensated (the mechanism for this aspect may turn out to be a little complicated too). So we couldn’t do away with charges altogether.

    @Peter Coles – in your view, would the peer review be “traditional” i.e. anonymous and non-public? Or a more open style as is possible with Paperrater? An interesting novel approach to peer review was proposed recently by neuroscientists Kravitz & Baker – not 100% relevant to astrophysics but good food for thought.

    Next step – a detailed costing, and some influential backers? (Seems like you have those!). A nice LaTeX style file? I volunteer as word-spreader, and whatever other skills of mine can be put to use.

    • telescoper Says:

      We all do peer review already. For nothing. Why are people talking like this would be new?

      • Right, but so far refereeing created nothing for the referee, only revenue for the journals. Having it out in the open would do two things:
        – Improve the review since one has to remain fair and constructive
        – Add reputation for those who do the review (well)

        David Hogg mentioned that in the Project Euclid journal, open review (with named referees) is included in the final PDF file: http://projecteuclid.org/DPubS?service=UI&version=1.0&verb=Display&handle=euclid.aos/1112967698

      • Indeed.

        But as Sarah points out, it’s important to remember that this stuff does cost money, especially if peer review would be in some way compensated (the mechanism for this aspect may turn out to be a little complicated too). So we couldn’t do away with charges altogether.

        PEER REVIEW HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS ISSUE!!!!!!!

        Referees are not paid now and thus money for the referees is 0% of academic journal costs.

        Yes, there are some people who don’t like refereeing, but don’t let them hijack this discussion like the “gold” folks did by hijacking the “open” buzzword. (“There are lies, damn lies, and open-access.”)

      • I only brought it up because Mike Merrifield mentioned compensation for an independent referee service during our twitter-chat with Peter about this yesterday, which is an interesting idea.

        I agree that peer review under this new scheme that Peter proposes doesn’t need to be any different than it is now -no need to get your knickers in a twist.

  15. I think there is already a frame in place for what @telescoper describes. See PeerJ for example (http://peerj.com/how-it-works/). At the moment PeerJ does not have plans for astronomy, but it may be worth showing them as a collective that we’re *very* interested.

    The mainframe is already there. We just need to convince PeerJ that we’re ready for it.

  16. I think this is a great idea. Thanks for taking the initiative and volunteering to put up the money! Other commenters have raised a bunch of issues that need to be looked at, but all of them are solvable, I think.

    I’m willing to help out — certainly by refereeing and submitting articles when the time comes, possibly in other ways.

  17. Like Sarah, I’m curious about your (Peter’s) thinking on one thing: are you envisioning traditional blind peer review or some sort of open review?

  18. Good to see this type of proposal and full support from my side. Although I doubt that astronomy can ‘lead the way’ with just a new peer-review system. The cutting edge seems to be the recent F1000+figshare merger. Now, if astronomy were to create a F1000 which is truly open, then. In the meantime, I think Paperrater is already well-placed as a platform for experimenting with open review

    http://www.digital-science.com/blog/posts/figshare-and-f1000-research-shake-up-traditional-academic-publishing-format

    • We are not (or at least should not be) discussing some sort of new peer-review system. The topic is avoiding overpriced journals by setting up a web-based journal, probably with the arXiv involved at some level. Peer review should continue more or less as now. Possibly some aspects of it could be changed later, when the immediate problem is solved, after balanced discussion, if really necessary.

      • Rob Ivison Says:

        Keep banging the drum, Phillip. The current editor/referee system is far from perfect, but nor is it in dire need of overhaul. Do I need to be paid to act as editor or referee? No, but i do not expect to be exploited to make money for publishers, as now.

      • I think you are agreeing with me. I am agreeing with you.

  19. Let’s focus our efforts. This involves two main points. (I will omit the obligatory reference to Cardinal Fang going out and coming back in and asking Biggles again. :-))

    First, concentrate on avoiding overpriced journals and nothing else, i.e. no discussion of the anonymity (or lack thereof) of peer review, of peer review in general, of replacing traditional peer review with some sort of “Like” button or whatever. One reason: One thing at a time. Another reason: Most will be on board regarding avoiding overpriced journals. The opinion is much more divided on the other issues and, faced with a choice, some people might the rock rather than the hard place, i.e. stick with the current system rather than move to the equivalent of a usenet flame war on the merits of papers.

    Second: Decide whether to improve some existing system or start from scratch (perhaps with input from people experienced with other systems). If this is to be a replacement for a journal, then in principle I think it is a good thing to have a range of options, just like there is with journals. (Can you get a fair deal if the wife of the Editor-in-Chief left him for you? It’s good to have more than one option.) On the other hand, we need something good, fast and cheap, which is forbidden by some theorem. However, to come close, efforts shouldn’t be spread too thinly.

    • Well, I might have read the original posting in a different way, but if the idea is to create essentially a new open journal, just less expensive, I don’t quite see the point. In this case it might be more useful to push for an astronomy journal on the PeerJ platform, as Eli suggested. In comparison to conventional journals, PeerJ comes with a novel pricing model and optional open review.

      • Not a new open journal, of which there are many (of varying degrees of quality), but rather a replacement for respected traditional peer-reviewed journals, the only difference being that it is not overpriced.

        For the astronomical community, I think it would be better if the journal were under the control of the astronomical community.

  20. Great idea! You may want to submit a “proposal” to the arXiv, just to make it official, and request for people to sign up somewhere with their desired contribution (or just, say, commitment to submit there) and comments.

  21. For the interest of the debate, there is also Scholastica [1], which offers a platform with which to operate a journal. Admittedly, it does already invoke a fee, which can be paid however the journal operator desires, but it also doesn’t try to overhaul the peer-review system.

    It isn’t quite free but possibly worth introducing to the debate anyway?

    [1] https://scholasticahq.com/

  22. Interesting to see how many people have thought about this and begun to develop their ideas. There is huge inertia in the system, because of the use of citation indices, journal quality indicators and peer review in the assessment of papers. We do want to keep many aspects of the existing system. But if the existing system now becomes unaffordable, this may be the time that a new initiative could take off. The only place where a publisher is needed is in the publication. An all-electronic journal working with arxiv may work. The best way to innovate may be if an existing journal changes sides (MNRAS?). Peter, why don’t you call a meeting on this?

    • My thoughts exactly.

      Citation indices? Yes, important to some degree. What one needs to avoid is being forced to use a citation index which is provided by a publisher of some of the journals involved! If I understand things correctly, this is happening in the UK.

      Journal-quality indicators? Yes, very important to have quality, which is why the focus should be on keeping the basic idea of a traditional journal in place—editing, refereeing etc—and getting rid of just the overpriced publication.

      Peer review? Certainly; keep it as it is. There is actually no relation between journal costs and peer review, considering the fact that referees work for free. However, some journals will argue that they “provide” peer review and that by not using them quality will suffer. The only way to avoid this is by having at least as good standards of peer review in the new journal.

      • I would add that citation index, journal quality indicator and peer review are important for the funding bodies and, above them, the government. In the UK, that is the department of Business(!) Bibliometrics and impact factors are needed to convince them their money is well spend.

  23. I’m sort of with Phillip here: the only thing I want to change about the current system (apart from the odd rubbish referee report, or the odd editor who won’t back their referee) is the lack of openness and the cost. So I’d publish in a new open access journal if (1) it had an editorial board I trusted to keep the referees under control and the crackpots out, (2) it was backed by a (non-profit!) corporate body like a learned society, and (3) up-front costs were low (but don’t have to be zero).

    The variant on the idea that we’ve just come up here is to set up a new RAS-backed open journal, to run in parallel with MNRAS. That would have the advantage that MNRAS wouldn’t have to ‘change sides’ instantaneously; but a lot of the existing MNRAS infrastructure at Burlington House could be re-used without really adding much in the way of cost. Whether this is practical may depend on what sort of deal the RAS has with Wiley-Blackwell.

    Just a reminder that the RAS is a democratic organization. If they won’t listen, let’s put up a bunch of people for election next time round on an open-access platform…

    • I would add a fourth point: quality. I would also require the three points you do, but the journal also has to have a quality comparable to, say, MNRAS.

      Let me point out that there are open-access, peer-reviewed journals with no costs to authors and no cost to readers run by people at respected institutes (though not affiliated with said institutes themselves, I hasten to point out). These fail on point (1) (keeping crackpots out). However, this is just one aspect of quality. It is possible to have a low-quality but non-crackpot journal: sloppy editing, faulty language, irrelevant papers, papers which are too long, badly written papers etc.

      The first step is to come up with a list of criteria which everyone agrees are essential: (1) respectable editorial board, (2) backed by an appropriate body, (3) low costs, (4) quality. One then needs to try to get the RAS etc involved, giving enough time for elections if the response is not positive. Only then should one decide on the actual technical details of the implementation. In particular, one shouldn’t choose an existing platform which does not already meet all the required criteria.

      Something which hasn’t been mentioned, and which many native speakers of English might not realize is an issue, is the question of editing in order to improve language, style, presentation etc. I don’t think that this could be done on a voluntary basis. This is one reason why I don’t demand zero costs, but reasonable costs. In particular, the body backing the journal should be non-profit.

      An additional point which Anton mentioned and I commented on above is that one needs to achieve more transparency at arXiv, at least if arXiv is to be required before the paper is accepted. The current situation of anonymous editors and no way to appeal decisions is not acceptable for something which is to be essentially required by the astronomical community. I think it is good that arXiv has a monopoly here, but if someone is not allowed to submit papers to arXiv, there needs to be some none-anonymous person who can be held responsible and democratically ousted if necessary. Also, the person in question should receive a detailed reason for the rejection which he is allowed to publicize.

      • I think ‘quality’ of the sort I care about is implicit in having a decent editorial board and referee selection process. I am not particularly bothered about editing. We cope with the many spelling and punctuation mistakes in the papers that appear on the arxiv; journal editing doesn’t catch them all, and frequently introduces new errors of grammar or, worse, fact.

        I would rather keep arxiv out of the loop if the idea were to set up a new ‘proper’ journal, precisely because one doesn’t want to be governed by the intersection of arxiv’s policy and the journal’s (and because arxiv’s policies might change without warning). The subset of arxiv’s functionality that’s needed to publish an all-electronic journal is pretty trivial to implement.

      • “I would rather keep arxiv out of the loop if the idea were to set up a new ‘proper’ journal, precisely because one doesn’t want to be governed by the intersection of arxiv’s policy and the journal’s (and because arxiv’s policies might change without warning). The subset of arxiv’s functionality that’s needed to publish an all-electronic journal is pretty trivial to implement.”

        If some people and institutes want to put their stuff on arXiv only after acceptance, then arXiv will have to stay out of the loop until at least after acceptance. (One could use the temporary ID one gets before the paper actually appears and give the password to the editor, but this is really (ab)using this feature for something it wasn’t designed to do.)

        The good thing about arXiv is that it is a one-stop shop. As a result, most people will probably still put their papers there. An additional site where one can download papers seems extra work for little benefit. While disk space might not be an issue, bandwidth might be, especially if people use this as the primary source of papers. But we don’t want to have to check all the journals every day; that would be a step back from the consolidated list at arXiv.

        A new journal can and should maintain a permanent archive of accepted papers, but it would take more resources to make this the primary source of such papers for readers, which most people probably don’t want anyway.

        I don’t see a problem with a journal demanding that the final accepted version be posted on arXiv. I also don’t think there will be any problem getting arXiv to accept, by default, all papers accepted by a serious journal.

  24. There has been a lot of talk and hand-wringing about this. First of all, astronomy is fortunate in that most of our top journals are produced by the professional societies, and not commercial publishers; many other fields are not so lucky, and they have a much bigger problem, as the traditional publishing is dying (think music industry, or newspapers).

    There are several different aspects of this problem, which I would group in 3 types: technology, peer review, and persistence.

    We are still largely stuck in a printed-paper paradigm, mimicking that ancient medium on a computer screen. Electronic publishing makes it cheaper and easier, but we yet have to make a full use of the possibilities in conveying information in different ways. We also need to broaden the concept and the range of scientific publications.

    As for the peer review and editorial discretion, some form of a quality control and validation is necessary; yet, many of us think that the peer review system as it stands is broken, regardless of the medium. Perhaps some form of a controlled/supervised crowdsourcing of the peer review is a good path to explore.

    Finally, one key function of scholarly publishing is to assure a longevity of the publications (printed paper was good at that, but it also required some long-term, special housing, aka the libraries). Established professional societies may be natural curators of our long-term electronic libraries, but there are many practical issues to resolve there as well.

    We had some good discussions of these issues at the first two Astroinformatics conferences, and plan to continue at AstroInformatics 2012 (htp://astroinformatics2012.org). Please come and contribute, if you are interested.

    • Yes, astronomy is relatively well off. However, the current political situation in the UK is making it worse. Yes, many journals are backed by learned societies, but in many cases the actual publication is handled by a commercial publisher, who makes a profit (i.e. not all income from the journal supports the non-profit societey).

      The music industry is a red herring here. Yes, in both cases change has come about because electronic copying is easier, but otherwise chalk and cheese.

      Technology? Yes, the paper paradigm is still there, but it shouldn’t be abandoned too quickly. I see no problem with updating references (i.e. changing “submitted” to the actual journal reference after publication), correcting typos even after publication or adding an addendum if it turns out something was actually wrong. On the other hand, when I cite a paper, I want the reader who looks up that paper to find something which is what I had in mind. Making more use of modern technology is certainly an issue, but I think we should put first things first, especially since once the paper standard is gone this will be easier to do than now.

      Peer review? I’m glad you mentioned “controlled”. However, I think that one should not conflate this issue with the issue of avoiding overpriced journals, especially since said journals try to claim that one reason for their price is that they “provide” peer review. Referees work for free, so it is really a separate issue. Again, first things first. In addition, while there might be a consensus for avoiding overpriced journals, I don’t think there is for overhauling peer review.

      While longevity is something which does need to be addressed, I don’t think that, in practice, it is a serious or expensive problem. However, I don’t think that this is something which should be handled by volunteer labour.

      Maybe the conference you mention can be an important step in achieving our goal.

    • A few thoughts on abandoning (La)TeX in manuscript preparation: http://theconfusionlimit.tumblr.com/

  25. Once a list of indispensable criteria is agreed upon, at some point it might be a good idea to have a public list of people, the more famous the better, who state that, where it is under their control (i.e. take co-authors’ wishes into account etc), they will publish exclusively in such a new journal as long as it meets the mentioned criteria. Having good papers is indispensable, and having respected people (who have less to lose than the person still looking for a job) move to a new journal is probably the fastest way to get there, through their own papers and, as a result, through less senior people seeing publishing here as less of a risk.

  26. telescoper Says:

    Thanks for all the comments and suggestions on this post, and also for the offers of help I’ve received by email. It will take me a while to read them all in detail and work out what to do next, but I think it might be a good idea to have a meeting, perhaps including the RAS at some time about this.

  27. The main issue regarding a new journal is acceptability. There is a chicken-and-egg problem, of course. However, this problem could be avoided altogether. Instead of setting up a new journal along the lines we have been discussing, simply change MNRAS to conform to the new paradigm. That way, the reputation is already there. MNRAS has changed over the years anyway (it is no longer monthly nor does it contain the notices of the RAS; the pink pages have gone as well).

    I say suggest this at an RAS meeting. If the response is negative, make it an issue at the next elections. After that, implement it. If there isn’t a majority within the RAS even after the next election, then the prospects of a new journal getting off the ground wouldn’t look good, since presumably most people, or at least most RAS members, would prefer MNRAS to conform to the new paradigm rather than setting up a journal in direct competition to MNRAS.

  28. The arxiv is great as an archive. It has minimal peer review and editing.

    What is really needed here (and ultimately what Peter is asking for) is not a journal but an Editor (or more). That is, someone who does the only useful thing journals currently do: filter out crackpots, send off real papers to be peer reviewed, read the referee’s comments and decide whether or not to publish. I don’t think this is easily automated, more for social and psychological reasons than anything else.

    You can call that process a Journal if you like. You can even automate production of monthly publications. But let’s be clear on the main feature that needs reproducing.

    The main worry I see is what everyone else says – those without permanent positions have a disincentive to publish via this new process. This would only go away if you get change any perception that there was a difference between where you are publishing – if traditional journals just become the place you can publish if you want to show off your wealth, for instance, and nothing else.

  29. There is a mathematics journal that works in more or less the way telescoper is suggesting: see http://www.emis.de/journals/SIGMA/
    Authors submit a version arxiv and notify the editors to consider it for peer review. After peer review and copy-editing, the definitive version replaces the old version on arxiv, and the journal declares it published by hyperlinking to it. Quite simple and rather elegant. The main cost would be copy-editing.

    Even apart from the open access aspect, it would be nice to see a journal that was more interesting and fun to read than, ahem, the ones we have now.

    • Is it a completely new journal or did a traditional journal move to this modern setup? If the former, is it considered prestigious enough to publish in if one plans to apply for a job at, say, the university of Zürich?

      • I have no special knowledge regarding SIGMA, but browsing through, it looks like a respectable journal.

        Assuming an arxiv-overlay journal uses the same referee pool as established journals, would the quality control (and impact factor, etc etc) not be similar?

      • “Assuming an arxiv-overlay journal uses the same referee pool as established journals, would the quality control (and impact factor, etc etc) not be similar?”

        It should be, as long as people are willing to publish there. Of course, there is the possibility that people publish acceptable but borderline papers in the new journal and the really good ones in the old journal; if this happens, people will be less willing to publish in the new journal.

        For this to work, there has to be a large number of people who will submit essentially all their papers to the new journal (or an old journal in the new format) and this needs to be led by senior scientists.

  30. telescoper Says:

    I think many of these contributions are missing the point. Digital publishing means that the concept of a “journal” is entirely redundant. Monthly Notices isn’t Monthly anyway, and if it disappeared hardly anyone would Notice…

    What we need is a refereed archive. We have the archive bit already (the arXiv). All we need to do is set up a front end to manage the refereeing. Simples.

    If the RAS wants to do this for us, fine, but not at £2000 a pop in APC.

    I’m getting emails about how much it would cost to set this up – all based on costs of running existing journals, the expense of which is either wasted or simply profit for publishers. It’s time to stop thinking about journals and other outmoded ideas, and think instead about the best way to get science published.

    • I think many of us agree with this. You, I or many other people could set this up as a website in a couple of hours. The problem is acceptance. That’s why convincing the RAS to run it (not for profit) would be good: it would be just as respectable as MNRAS is now if it is just MNRAS in a new guise.

      If you set up Peter’s Journal of Astronomy, Astrophysics, Cosmology and Jazz, the question is whether people would be happy to have their papers there and not elsewhere. Chicken and egg, since they would be happy only if it were respectable, and it would be respectable only if it has good papers. So, set it up (I’ll host it if you want) and submit all your papers to it and convince your senior colleagues to do the same. All it needs is an editor to manage the referees, make the final decisions and be a point of contact to the community. Some big-wig names on the editorial board would also be good. (Note that there are online journals with big-wig names on the editorial board, and the people with those names don’t even know it! It needs to be more than a token contribution, which I would define at a minimum as follows: If someone on the editorial board is asked out of the blue whether he is on said editorial board, he should be absolutely sure that the answer is “yes”.)

      There are already many such online journals. The problem is, most of them have little if any quality control. Thus, such publications in one’s publication list are worse than worthless: they count as points against you. People applying for jobs, which for various reasons is more difficult than it was in the past, simply can’t risk publishing only in an obscure journal. So, to make your idea work, it has to be high quality, and the way to start is to get senior people to have their papers only or predominately in this new “journal”, not just a token paper.

      Let’s wait until the middle of September or until after the next RAS meeting (where it should be suggested that the RAS transform MNRAS to something like we want). If by then no other approach looks promising, I can run the website and you can be the editor. Whether or not people choose to publish there depends on you, as Editor-in-Chief, convincing them to do so.

      • One additional point: If it is to be something new, and not MNRAS reloaded, then it needs a proper LaTeX class. The “papers” should have a uniform look and feel. People will still print them out, and when one sees such a paper it should be obvious what the journal is.

  31. [...] aus der Astronomie auf dem Tisch, den Plan der Regierung mit einem eigenen Konzept zu kontern: Zu gründen ist ein Verlags-unabhängiges Open-Access-Journal, das dank Peer Review gewohnter Qualität dieselbe Reputation wie die führenden kommerziellen [...]

  32. I am afraid that the Arxiv endorsement is opaque and does not work well. What happens if you can’t get your paper on ArXiv for some reason? Then it cannot be refereed? Please leave ArXiv out of the system until they become much more accountable!!!

    Last year I endorsed afriend of mine who works at a think tank so he could upload a paper on the famous neutrino result that was refuted recently. His paper was as good as any of the 100 or so other papers already on ArXiv on this subject and certainly much less exotic. It dealt with trying to explain the result in the context of special relativity. In fact I spent a full week studying the paper and equations before agreeing to endorse to make sure the result made sense.

    I came to the conclusion the paper had sound arguments and so I endorsed him. He uploaded the paper, and strangely it was rejected!!! Let me repeat, I *endorsed* the author, but I was overturned and the paper rejected. We asked the reasons why and ArXiv refused to give us the reasons. I suspect it was because my friend has no academic affiliation, but this is only a theory.

    As an established astronomer myself with ~60 refereed articles, I find the ArXiv system is obviously not working. If you are allowed to endorse, then you should not be arbitrarily overturned, and any such decision cannot be made behind closed curtains.

    I now have adopted the policy never to reference an ArXiv paper, although I am forced to post my own papers on there when they are accepted (since ArXiv is the only place for early dissemination). I certainly will not join a scheme to use ArXiv as the archive end for a new journal and refereeing process! I may change my mind if ArXiv makes concerted efforts to change their policy.

    p.s ArXiv has also some plain contradictions in its policy on plagiarism. It states clearly that plagirarism is not acceptable. They even have a system that can detect it. Yet when I complained about a article that plagiarises one of my papers (and someone elses), they said they would not do anything about it, and the link to the paper that conatin copied material still exists:

    http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.4363v1

    copied from my paper:

    http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005MNRAS.359.1096B

    (and others)

    • “I am afraid that the Arxiv endorsement is opaque and does not work well. What happens if you can’t get your paper on ArXiv for some reason? Then it cannot be refereed? Please leave ArXiv out of the system until they become much more accountable!!!”

      See my comments in this and other threads along similar lines. I agree: if arXiv is to be used by some sort of official, serious journal, then arXiv needs to have clear policies and there needs to be some way to enforce them. As it stands now, complaining too loudly might get one banned from arXiv forever, which, scientifically, is probably worse than being banished to Siberia.

      Thus my suggestion to leave arXiv completely out of the loop until after acceptance. If arXiv, for whatever reason, won’t allow an accepted paper to be posted, then I hope that the journal would have enough clout to get them to change their mind. (At present, even acceptance by a reputable journal is not necessarily enough to allow the paper to be posted to arXiv, but one reason for this might be because it would be difficult for arXiv to verify such a claim. However, I would expect the editors of the new journal to be on speaking terms with the arXiv staff, and there should be a written agreement that all accepted papers will be allowed on arXiv.)

      There is no shortage of people complaining about established journals, probably because the same people claim that such journals are not needed. However, public criticism of arXiv is extremely rare, probably because of fear of punishment from arXiv. While arXiv has proved its usefulness, it is time to grow up and have clear policies, clear and transparent handling of complaints and have at least some spokespersons known to the community by name (the last I heard, all the astronomy administrators at arXiv are anonymous).

      • Interestingly enough ArXiv is moving towards a funding model where institutions pay towards its upkeep. I think this will force them to be more open about their policies, otherwise disgruntled users like me will ask our institutions not to fund them. My employer is already aware of the problems ArXiv has caused me, and these cases will influence our provision of funding.

      • I agree with your request for clear policies. But come on, do you really think arXiv admins would scan the web for criticism or rants about arXiv and then ban the user? Any evidence, even anecdotal?

      • “Interestingly enough ArXiv is moving towards a funding model where institutions pay towards its upkeep. I think this will force them to be more open about their policies, otherwise disgruntled users like me will ask our institutions not to fund them. My employer is already aware of the problems ArXiv has caused me, and these cases will influence our provision of funding.”

        Interesting point, but my feeling is that in the case of a conflict they would opt to forego funding by a few institutes rather than own up to what’s going on.

        My guess is that most people with problems are not affiliated with institutes, so even if threats like this worked, it wouldn’t help them, unless the institute of the endorser threatened (but see above). I think the endorsement policy is necessary. Most crackpots are not affiliated with institutes and most people affiliated with institutes are not crackpots, but in both cases it is “most” and not “all”. Keeping out crackpots is the goal of the endorsement scheme, which is fair enough, but simply not allowing someone to put something on arXiv (except perhaps in the “general physics” category, which is a code-word for crackpot, at least in some cases) because of the lack of an institutional affiliation—especially if the person followed arXiv’s own suggestion and got an endorsement—is absurd.

      • “I agree with your request for clear policies. But come on, do you really think arXiv admins would scan the web for criticism or rants about arXiv and then ban the user? Any evidence, even anecdotal?”

        No, but I didn’t claim that this is the case. However, cases such as this, which definitely exist, don’t seem to generate much discussion, which is a bit puzzling. What I meant to say that if a person has problems with arXiv, which cannot be resolved via the (undefined) procedures they have in place, then going public will probably make the situation worse. Someone who can’t put his stuff on arXiv is at a serious disadvantage, and it is practically intellectual suicide to go public with problems with arXiv, since they often give no reason for their actions and there is no formal way to complain.

        One way to improve the current situation would be to have a list of approved journals and a rule that a paper accepted by one of these journals is automatically allowed onto arXiv. This wouldn’t solve all problems, but would be a start. However, I don’t think this will happen because it would use journals as a measure of approval, which is something arXiv tends to avoid.

    • “p.s ArXiv has also some plain contradictions in its policy on plagiarism. It states clearly that plagirarism is not acceptable. They even have a system that can detect it. Yet when I complained about a article that plagiarises one of my papers (and someone elses), they said they would not do anything about it, and the link to the paper that conatin copied material still exists:”

      This is a bit off-topic here, but does concern plagiarism, specifically a weak attempt to hide it. I haven’t laughed so much in a long time: http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/sinister-buttocks-roget-would-blush-at-the-crafty-cheek/2015027.article

  33. [...] readers of this blog (Sid and Doris Bonkers) may recall that a few weeks ago I posted an item in which I suggested setting up The Open Journal of Astrophysics. The motivation behind this was to [...]

  34. [...] as we start talking about Open Journals in Astronomy and Astrophysics, we seem to continually ignore the meta data fields on the ArXiv. [...]

  35. [...] readers of this blog may recall that  while ago  I posted an item in which I suggested setting up The Open Journal of Astrophysics. The motivation behind this was to [...]

  36. [...] regular readers of this blog will know, I’ve suggested a way to bypass traditional journals and achieve a form of publication that is both open to all and run at a minimal cost to authors. [...]

  37. […] readers of this blog (Sid and Doris Bonkers) may recall that  while ago  I posted an item in which I suggested setting up The Open Journal of Astrophysics. The motivation behind this was to […]

  38. […] been getting quite a few questions about my modest proposal The Open Journal for Astrophysics. I don’t want to give too much away before the site is […]

  39. […] timely follow up to this discussion was the update we got from Rob and Chris on the Open Journal for Astrophysics, a project they have been working on with Peter Coles and a number of other scientists. Much of […]

  40. […] a quick announcement that we’re stepping up the testing phase of the Open Journal for Astrophysics and would really appreciate it if astrophysicists and cosmologists out there would help us out by […]

  41. […] owe many people various apologies for not posting anything for a while about the Open Journal for Astrophysics. For a start I have to admit that the call for test submissions last year was a bit premature. I […]

  42. […] – it’s common practice to post on arXiv even before submitting to a journal. What if, Peter mused, we could add peer review to the process of putting a paper on arXiv? What would be […]

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

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 3,588 other followers

%d bloggers like this: