Alternatives to legacy journals

Introduces new publishing models beyond the traditional subscription journals. Examples include publishing platforms like Octopus (which breaks papers into smaller units), modular publishing on ResearchEquals, community peer-review outlets like Peer Community In, and overlay journals that curate arXiv preprints. These alternatives aim to make publishing faster, fairer, and more transparent by decoupling the functions of journals.

• Anon. (n.d.). Free, fast and fair: The Global Primary Research Record where researchers publish their work in full detail. Octopus. https://www.octopus.ac/
• Anon. (n.d.). Researchequals.com. ResearchEquals.com. https://www.researchequals.com/
• Anon. (2023). Free Peer Review & Validation of preprints of articles. Peer Community In. https://peercommunityin.org/
• Corker, K. S., Waltman, L., & Coates, J. A. (2024). Understanding the Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) Model of Scholarly Communication. https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/h7swt
• Currie, G. (2024). Open science: What is publish, review, curate? Inside eLife. https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/dc24a9cd/open-science-what-is-publish-review-curate
• MetaROR. (2024, November 21). Publish–Review–Curate. MetaROR. https://cms.metaror.org/publish-review-curate
• Sever, R. (2023). Biomedical publishing: Past historic, present continuous, future conditional. PLOS Biology, 21(10), e3002234. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002234
• Wikimedia Foundation. (2023, September 1). Overlay Journal. Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overlay_journal

Different shades of open access

We usually hear about GOLD open access (journal archives openly) for hefty fees. There are other options that may better fit your needs (and budget / reluctance to fund for-profit publishers); GREEN (self-archive), DIAMOND (journal archives openly for free), and more.

• Anon. An introduction to open access. Jisc. (n.d.). https://www.jisc.ac.uk/guides/an-introduction-to-open-access
• Anon. (n.d.). OA books toolkit. Green, gold, diamond – different models for open access books | OA Books Toolkit. https://oabooks-toolkit.org/lifecycle/article/13868103-green-gold-diamond-different-models-for-open-access-books
• Butler, L.-A., Matthias, L., Simard, M.-A., Mongeon, P., & Haustein, S. (2023). The oligopoly’s shift to open access: How the big five academic publishers profit from article processing charges. Quantitative Science Studies, 4(4), 778–799. https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00272
• Hardwicke, T. E., Mathur, M. B., MacDonald, K., Nilsonne, G., Banks, G. C., Kidwell, M. C., Hofelich Mohr, A., Clayton, E., Yoon, E. J., Henry Tessler, M., Lenne, R. L., Altman, S., Long, B., & Frank, M. C. (2018). Data availability, reusability, and analytic reproducibility: evaluating the impact of a mandatory open data policy at the journal Cognition. Royal Society Open Science, 5(8), 180448. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.180448
• Rouder, J. N. (2015). The what, why, and how of born-open data. Behavior Research Methods, 48(3), 1062–1069. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-015-0630-z
• Siler, K., Haustein, S., Smith, E., Larivière, V., & Alperin, J. P. (2018). Authorial and institutional stratification in open access publishing: the case of global health research. PeerJ, 6, e4269. Portico. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4269
• Piwowar, H., Priem, J., Larivière, V., Alperin, J. P., Matthias, L., Norlander, B., Farley, A., West, J., & Haustein, S. (2018). The state of OA: a large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles. PeerJ, 6, e4375. Portico. https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.4375

Open peer review

Open peer review typically refers to sharing reviewer reports and/or reviewers signing reviews. It is important to understand which definition is being used to understand the pros and cons.

• Anon. (n.d.). About Meta-Psychology. Meta-Psychology. https://open.lnu.se/index.php/metapsychology/about
• Carlsson, R., Lakens, D., van Assen, M.A.L.M., Heene, M., Innes-Ker, A., Schönbrodt, F., Danielsson, H., DeBruine, L., Buchanan, E.M., Kalmendal, A., Holcombe A.O., & Batinovic, L. (2023, March 14). Meta-psychology. OSF. https://osf.io/3m4z3/
• Ford, E. (2013). Defining and Characterizing Open Peer Review: A Review of the Literature. Journal of Scholarly Publishing 44(4), 311-326. https://muse.jhu.edu/article/513250.
• Halffman, W., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2020). What are innovations in peer review and editorial assessment for? Genome Biology, 21(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-020-02004-4
• Halffman, W., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2024). Designing journal peer review: diverse expectations, procedures and concerns. How to Edit and Manage a Successful Scholarly Journal, 68–78. https://doi.org/10.4337/9781035300174.00015
• Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. ( W. (2018). The changing forms and expectations of peer review. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 3(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-018-0051-5
• Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (2018). The ability of different peer review procedures to flag problematic publications. Scientometrics, 118(1), 339–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-018-2969-2
• Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (2020). Innovating editorial practices: academic publishers at work. Research Integrity and Peer Review, 5(1). https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00097-w
• Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Halffman, W. (2019). Journal Peer Review and Editorial Evaluation: Cautious Innovator or Sleepy Giant? Minerva, 58(2), 139–161. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11024-019-09388-z
• Horbach, S. P. J. M., & Overgaard, S. (2025). Changing peer review practices: transforming roles and future challenges. Acta Orthopaedica, 96. https://doi.org/10.2340/17453674.2025.44353
• Horbach, S., Hepkema, W., & Halffman, W. (2020). Hundreds of journals’ editorial practices captured in database. Nature, 582(7810), 32–32. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01628-7
• Horbach, S. P. J. M., Hepkema, W. M., & Halffman, W. (2020). The Platform for Responsible Editorial Policies: An initiative to foster editorial transparency in scholarly publishing. Learned Publishing, 33(3), 340–344. Portico. https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1312
• Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2021). How the pandemic changed editorial peer review – and why we should wonder whether that’s desirable. Impact of Social Sciences (LSE). https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2021/02/10/how-the-pandemic-changed-editorial-peer-review-and-why-we-should-wonder-whether-thats-desirable/
• Horbach, S. P. J. M., Ochsner, M., & Kaltenbrunner, W. (2022). Reflections on guest editing a Frontiers journal [Blog post]. Leiden Madtrics. https://www.leidenmadtrics.nl/articles/reflections-on-guest-editing-a-frontiers-journal?
• Horbach, S. P. J. M., Ross-Hellauer, T., & Waltman, L. (2022). Sunlight not shadows: Double-anonymized peer review is not the progressive answer to status bias. OSF https://osf.io/preprints/osf/fqb5c_v1
• Álvarez-García, E., García-Costa, D., Squazzoni, F., Malički, M., Mehmani, B., & Grimaldo, F. (2026). Published peer review reports have higher informative content than unpublished reports. Journal of Informetrics, 20(1), 101760. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2025.101760
• Lynam, D. R., Hyatt, C. S., Hopwood, C. J., Wright, A. G. C., & Miller, J. D. (2019). Should psychologists sign their reviews? Some thoughts and some data. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 128(6), 541–546. https://doi.org/10.1037/abn0000426
• Mahoney, M. J. (1977). Publication prejudices: An experimental study of confirmatory bias in the peer review system. Cognitive Therapy and Research, 1(2), 161–175. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01173636
• Morey, R. D., Chambers, C. D., Etchells, P. J., Harris, C. R., Hoekstra, R., Lakens, D., Lewandowsky, S., Morey, C. C., Newman, D. P., Schönbrodt, F. D., Vanpaemel, W., Wagenmakers, E.-J., & Zwaan, R. A. (2016). The Peer Reviewers’ Openness Initiative: incentivizing open research practices through peer review. Royal Society Open Science, 3(1), 150547. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.150547
• Okike, K., Hug, K. T., Kocher, M. S., & Leopold, S. S. (2016). Single-blind vs Double-blind Peer Review in the Setting of Author Prestige. JAMA, 316(12), 1315. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2016.11014
• Ross-Hellauer, T., Bouter, L. M., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2023). Open peer review urgently requires evidence: A call to action. PLOS Biology, 21(10), e3002255. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002255
• Ross-Hellauer, T., & Horbach, S. P. J. M. (2024). Additional experiments required: A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review. Research Evaluation, 33. https://doi.org/10.1093/reseval/rvae004
• Ross-Hellauer, T. (2017). What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research, 6, 588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2
• Schmidt, B., Ross-Hellauer, T., van Edig, X., & Moylan, E. C. (2018). Ten considerations for open peer review. F1000Research, 7, 969. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.15334.1
• Tvina, A., Spellecy, R., & Palatnik, A. (2019). Bias in the Peer Review Process. Obstetrics & Gynecology, 133(6), 1081–1083. https://doi.org/10.1097/AOG.0000000000003260
• van Rooyen, S., Godlee, F., Evans, S., Black, N., & Smith, R. (1999). Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers’recommendations: a randomised trial. BMJ, 318(7175), 23–27. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.318.7175.23

Preprints and postprints

To circumvent paywalls and inaccessible scientific work, pre- and postprints can be published on open repositories in order to make the work accessible to all.

• Anon. (n.d.). What are the differences between preprint and postprint versions?. ZB MED - Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften. https://www.publisso.de/en/advice/publishing-advice-faqs/preprint-and-postprint
• Chiarelli, A., Johnson, R., Pinfield, S., & Richens, E. (2019). Accelerating scholarly communication: The transformative role of preprints. Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3357727
• Johansson, M. A., Reich, N. G., Meyers, L. A., & Lipsitch, M. (2018). Preprints: An underutilized mechanism to accelerate outbreak science. PLOS Medicine, 15(4), e1002549. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002549

Rights retention strategies

To whom does the paper belong?

• Anon. (n.d.). Plan S rights retention strategy. Plan S. https://www.coalition-s.org/rights-retention-strategy

SPARC Europe - Rights Retention Helper:

• https://sparceurope.org/what-we-do/open-access/copyright/project-retain/rights-retention-helper/
• Suber, Peter. Methods of Rights Retention: Methods of rights retention