Open Quaternary: Two years on and going strong

Open Quaternary published its first papers in March 2015. Two years on, we speak to two of the co-Editor in Chiefs about their experiences of launching the journal, how these have compared to their expectations, and what plans they have for the future of the journal.

The journal was created by Suzanne Pilaar Birch (University of Georgia, USA), Victoria Herridge (Natural History Museum, UK), and Matthew Law (Bath Spa University, UK), who took the decision to share full responsibility for the journal and act as co-Editor in Chiefs, with an experienced supporting Editorial Board to call on. Hanneke Meijer (University of Bergen, Norway) joined as an additional co-Editor in Chief in the second half of 2015. Since the journal was launched, it has received nearly 55,000 page views, with its most accessed publication being viewed over 11,000 times. The journal is 100% open access.

Below Suzanne Pilaar Birch and Matthew Law give some feedback on their experiences on launching and maintaining the journal, with questions from Ubiquity Press.

UP: How has the experience of the last 2 years compared to your expectations?

ML: The Quaternary community has been tremendously supportive, through submitting articles and proposing special collections of papers, as well acting as reviewers and editorial board members. I think the opportunity to make their work so freely available has captured the imagination of many of our colleagues, and has lead to the publication of some very exciting research. Setting out, I didn’t imagine that the idea would be greeted so enthusiastically, and I expected that, as novice editors, we would find the practicalities much harder to manage than we did. Our publishers, Ubiquity Press, manage an extensive range of open access journals, and have expertly guided us through the journal launch and its ongoing management.

SPB: I agree with Matt, we have had a lot of support and interest in submitting to the journal has only increased with time. I think we have made great progress so far.

UP: Have there been any success stories/highs during this time? What have the greatest challenges or frustrations been, and how have you had to resolve/approach these?

SPB: The publication of our first special collection of articles was a great moment. The fact that we are online only meant that we were able to publish submissions as they came in, but having the final paper in place and being able to consider the collection complete was an achievement. We’re currently in the stages of preparing our second special collection for publication in 2017–2018.

ML: Receiving our first submission, and knowing that the journal had been ‘born’, was a very positive feeling. One thing we agreed was important from the outset was that the journal should be accessible, not only through being open access, but through having an editorial board that reflected the diversity of people working in the field. We still have some way to go on this, as we are largely based in Europe and North America (at this point, I would like to say that we do welcome nominations for board membership). We also wanted to give academic recognition to public engagement by publishing engagement papers, and to welcome contributions from workers outside of the academy. It was gratifying that our first engagement paper came from a museum curator. I hope we will see more.

SPB: The biggest challenge is continuing to gain recognition as a reliable and preferred journal in Quaternary research-becoming the first place people think of when they are considering where to submit their paper to.

ML: For me, the big challenge is looking for ways to grow the journal. As more established journals are responding to research funders’ requirements for open access publication by increasing their open content, we need to maintain our distinctiveness to ensure that we continue to attract authors. I think this can be achieved both through the types of contributions we publish, and also through reviewing our editorial practices so that we can enhance our commitment to transparency and accessibility.

UP: Open Quaternary publishes Data Papers, which are not a traditional article type. Has it been hard to get authors to publish data, either to accompany a Research Paper, or as a stand alone Data Paper?

ML: Presently, a low proportion of our published content is data papers, however it is pleasing that in just over two years we have brought three datasets to publication this way. I suspect that for some colleagues it’s an unfamiliar approach to research publication, however I think it offers advantages to a wide range of projects. As an educator with a strong belief in empowering students, I was extremely happy to learn that the lead author of one of the data papers we published was an undergraduate student. I hope she will benefit from the publication experience.

SPB: The main roadblock is that people don’t necessarily consider publishing stand alone data papers as a matter of course, though more journals are requiring or requesting data to be published or deposited along the publication of traditional research papers. I think as this trend continues, we will see more data papers come our way.

UP: How has the open access nature of the content affected the perception of the journal? Has this created pros or cons compared to closed access publications that you may have worked with?

SPB: It depends; if someone is already on board with open access publication, then they have generally been enthusiastic. I certainly see our accessibility as a positive, and have (hopefully) been able to convince some skeptics of the pros of publishing open access using OQ as an example.

ML: I do think that it created some goodwill from the outset. I think it certainly helped attract a supportive editorial board, who were very receptive to the concept of Open Quaternary. I suspect that the largest obstacle we face in terms of perception is the journal’s youth. Although that inspires some of our colleagues, I think others are cautious and would like to see the journal become more established before entrusting their work to us.

UP: How would you like to see the journal progress in the next five years?

SPB: I would love to see our submissions continue to increase with time, and as I said before, become one of the first journals people think of publishing with when considering where to send their manuscript.

ML: I would like to see more collaboration with societies that promote research in Quaternary science and allied fields. I would also like to see more data and engagement papers being submitted, both from large collaborative projects and contributions that arise from smaller pieces of work by people working in industry, museum professionals, and students around the world.

UP: What is the most rewarding part of being an editor?

ML: I learn a tremendous amount from reading new research when it is submitted, and I think it’s an underrated privilege to be able to pair submissions with reviewers who are able to supportively critique the work and reaffirm its rigour.

SPB: I enjoy reading through papers that I wouldn’t otherwise see, and working with the editorial board in certain instances to find the right reviewers. It’s also a great way to “meet” other researchers who I haven’t had the pleasure of corresponding with before.

UP: What piece of advice would you give to researchers considering an editorial role on a journal?

ML: I think it can be a tremendously rewarding and educational experience, I suspect more so when you are part of an editorial team and can turn to colleagues for guidance and expertise. As a researcher, being an editor has made me think very differently about how to present my research.

SPB: Yes, being an editor has definitely added some perspective to my own research and a better understanding of the review process. It does take time though, so as with all academic endeavors, I would say to choose wisely! I really enjoy the editorial process, so it is all worth it to me.

Open Quaternary is open for submissions and welcomes content on all aspects of the Quaternary. All publications are available, free of charge, on the journal website, including the special collection on Meta-analyses in zooarchaeology. Example content from the journal includes:

• Spikins, P., (2015). The Geography of Trust and Betrayal: Moral disputes and Late Pleistocene dispersal. Open Quaternary. 1(1), p.Art. 10. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/oq.ai
• Widga, C., Walker, J.D. & Boehm, A., (2017). Variability in Bioavailable 87Sr/86Sr in the North American Midcontinent. Open Quaternary. 3(1), p.4. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/oq.32
• Barnett, R. et al., (2016). Mitogenomics of the Extinct Cave Lion, Panthera spelaea (Goldfuss, 1810), Resolve its Position within the Panthera Cats. Open Quaternary. 2, p.4. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/oq.24
• Freedman, J. & Evans, J., (2015). Working with the Public: How an Unusual Museum Enquiry Turned into Travels Through Time and Space. Open Quaternary. 1(1), p.Art. 8. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/oq.ah
• Ersmark, E. et al., (2015). Population Demography and Genetic Diversity in the Pleistocene Cave Lion. Open Quaternary. 1(1), p.Art. 4. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/oq.aa
• Sinding, M.-H.S. & Gilbert, M.T.P., (2016). The Draft Genome of Extinct European Aurochs and its Implications for De-Extinction. Open Quaternary. 2, p.7. DOI: http://doi.org/10.5334/oq.25