In today’s ‘interview with an author’ we spoke to Jeremy Bruenn, from the Department of Biological Sciences, SUNY/Buffalo. Professor Bruenn is the co-author of the recent PeerJ article “Virus-host co-evolution under a modified nuclear genetic code” which published three weeks ago, and so we were very interested in hearing about his experiences with us.
PJ: With this research, why did you choose to publish in PeerJ rather than some over venue? And what were your initial impressions?
JB: Basically, both Derek and I were fed up with “elite” journals unable to recognize what is novel. Before submission we felt that you had a good editorial policy, good economics and the promise of a fast turn-around.
PJ: Were the author instructions and policies clear to you? Did any stand out for any reason?
JB: I especially like the flexibility with references, which are a great pain, even using Endnote, with some journals. You seem to want to help authors, rather than punish them for minor infractions.
PJ: What was your experience of the review process?
JB: Review was reasonably rapid and you responded courteously when we complained about delayed review (again unlike some elite journals). I think the idea of publishing reviews with the names of reviewers (with their permission) is great and I congratulate you on this innovation.
PJ: And the production process?
JB: Production was fast and flawless and easy (unlike something like PNAS, which is infinitely painful).
PJ: And what did you think to the overall speed of the process?
JB: The speed was fine – basically limited by reviewer cooperation. One editorial improvement might be to eliminate reviewers who are chronically late.
PJ: Was there anything that surprised you with your overall experience?
JB: I am always surprised by fairness in science.
PJ: Now that you have been through the process, what is the advantage for an author to publish their work with PeerJ
JB: The process is fast, cheap, fair, and attractive. If the journal develops a large readership, it will be unstoppable.
PJ: What has been your overall opinion of the process?
JB: I was impressed.
PJ: Would you submit again, and would you recommend that your colleagues submit?
JB: Yes and yes. See above for my reasons.
PJ: Many thanks for your time
JB: Thanks for your interest in my opinion.
If you like what you hear about PeerJ, then try us for yourself. PeerJ is now open for your submissions at https://PeerJ.com