Correspondence: jernej.ule@crick.ac. uk The Francis Crick Institute, 1 Midland Road, London NW1 1AT, UK Department of Neuromuscular Diseases, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK Full list of author information is available at the end of the article I am very fond of open access journals like Genome Biology. Another champion of such journals is Plan S, launched by Science Europe in 2018 and adopted by many funding agencies, which aims to encourage scientists to publish in open access journals or platforms [1]. I touch on some recent discussion of this topic and then highlight the need to link it to accessible raw and processed data associated with publications, which is particularly important in the genomics field. In the companion editorial by Halffman and Horbach, editorial innovations are discussed that could make the peer review process more cost effective while retaining the quality of the process. In the age of information overload, with the large numbers of papers coming online each day, a high-quality peer review process remains of paramount importance, not only to evaluate scientific quality but also to identify the most ‘paradigm-shifting’ studies. However, the cost of this process increases with the selectivity of the journal: Springer Nature estimates that it costs, on average, €10,000–30,000 to publish an article in one of its journals, partly due to low acceptance rate and partly in order to produce non-research content, such as news and opinion articles [2]. Thus, a journal is not just a conduit for papers, but can help in organising knowledge exchange in a field in general, which is particularly the case for journals that attract transformative work. In order to be able to judge the transformative nature of submitted papers, editors from journals such as Genome Biology spend a considerable amount of time engaging with the scientific community in conferences and communicating with other editors in the team and with the editorial board. Thus, the article processing charges (APCs) of the top tier journals would increase if they were to switch to full open access, which could shift from inequity in access to published work to inequity in access to publishing, as scientists and their funders in emerging economies may be less capable of shouldering such APC costs [3, 4]. Moreover, society journals and certain fields such as chemistry and humanities are particularly reliant on income from subscriptions to complement their relatively low APC revenues, and if they were less able to adapt, the full open access model could increase the monopoly of large publishing houses who can more easily change their business models [5, 6]. In response to these concerns, Plan S recently adopted a more flexible stance towards hybrid open access and towards ‘new, innovative publishing models’ that would

中文翻译：

---

开放获取、开放数据和同行评审

通讯：jernej.ule@crick.ac。uk The Francis Crick Institute, 1 Midland Road, London NW1 1AT, UK Department of Neuromuscular Diseases, UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology, Queen Square, London WC1N 3BG, UK 文章末尾提供完整的作者信息列表我是非常喜欢基因组生物学等开放获取期刊。此类期刊的另一个拥护者是 Plan S，它由 Science Europe 于 2018 年推出并被许多资助机构采用，旨在鼓励科学家在开放获取期刊或平台上发表论文 [1]。我谈到了最近关于这个主题的一些讨论，然后强调需要将它与与出版物相关的可访问的原始和处理过的数据联系起来，这在基因组学领域尤为重要。在 Halffman 和 Horbach 的配套社论中，讨论了可以使同行评审过程更具成本效益同时保持过程质量的编辑创新。在信息过载的时代，每天都有大量论文在线发布，高质量的同行评审过程仍然至关重要，不仅可以评估科学质量，还可以确定最“范式转换”的研究。然而，这个过程的成本随着期刊的选择性而增加：Springer Nature 估计，在其期刊中发表一篇文章的平均成本为 10,000-30,000 欧元，部分原因是接受率低，部分原因是为了制作非研究内容，例如新闻和观点文章 [2]。因此，期刊不仅是论文的渠道，而且可以帮助组织一个领域的知识交流，对于吸引变革性工作的期刊来说尤其如此。为了能够判断提交论文的变革性，Genome Biology 等期刊的编辑花费大量时间在会议上与科学界接触，并与团队中的其他编辑和编辑委员会进行交流。因此，如果顶级期刊转向完全开放获取，它们的文章处理费 (APC) 将会增加，这可能会从获取已发表作品的不公平转变为获取发表的不公平，因为科学家及其资助者在新兴经济体可能无法承担此类 APC 成本 [3, 4]。而且，社会期刊和某些领域如化学和人文特别依赖订阅收入来补充其相对较低的 APC 收入，如果它们的适应能力较差，完全开放获取模式可能会增加大型出版社的垄断，后者可以更多轻松改变他们的商业模式 [5, 6]。针对这些担忧，Plan S 最近对混合开放获取和“新的、创新的出版模式”采取了更灵活的立场。