Today’s Interview is with Professor Jafri Abdullah, Professor of Neurosciences and Director of the Center for Neuroscience Services and Research, Universiti Sains Malaysia, as well as the Head of the Department of Neurosciences, School of Medical Sciences, Universiti Sains Malaysia. We asked him for his opinion on Open Access in general, and PeerJ in particular.
PJ: Could you tell us a bit about yourself, and what brought you into your research?
JA: I am an Academic Neurosurgeon—scientist employed by the School Of Medical Sciencesand Hospital University Sains Malaysia (HUSM), which is one of the service centers attached to the Universiti Sains Malaysia (USM), an APEX and Research University. I did my graduate training in neurosurgery (specialist certification) and experimental neurosurgical neurosciences (PhD) during the same period from 1988 till 1995, beginning in HUSM, and thereafter in the Hospital University of Ghent, Belgium. I am the product of the first batch of MDs that graduated in 1986 from the USM.
I did my fellowship post doc training in neurophysiology in the Department of Neurology, University of Ghent, and another postdoc attachment in functional neurosurgery in the Department of Neurosurgery, Karolinska Institute in Stokholm, before returning to Malaysia, 16 years ago.
Four extremely energetic and knowledgeable Professors from Europe excited my neurons, encouraged me, and finally pushed me into this very field of “neurosurgical neurosciences”. They were Prof Emeritus Dr Luc Calliauw, Prof Dr Jacques Caemaert, and Prof Jacques De Reuk, from University of Ghent, Belgium and Prof Emeritus Dr Bjorn Meyerson from Karolinska Institute, Stockholm, Sweden.
They pushed me gently into this field because they were wise enough to see that Malaysia needed neurosurgeons with experimental neuroscience background, because much more information about the causes and treatment of diseases were needed, especially those related to “tropical” conditions. The endless sessions with them discussing the importance of neurosciences in neurosurgery made me decide that this would be a field for me, even though I was returning to a developing country, and I would need to start a new lab and look for funds for facilities and equipment, which were quite expensive. Over the years, these problems were overcome, and reasonable lab facilities were established encompassing clinical, applied, and fundamental equipment, including patch clamp electrophysiology, fMRI, and MEG equipment. I became a Professor 10 years ago, and I have graduated 36 neurosurgeons, 11 PhDs, as well as Masters in Neurosciences, from HUSM.
PJ: What excited you about PeerJ that persuaded you to become an Academic Editor?
JA: I was honored that PeerJ would think of contacting “this humble scientist “ in this developing country in South East Asia, namely Malaysia. It all started with tweets from my neuronman account. I was in my second year into tweeting, and my intentions were to make the world smaller by informing my followers about neurosciences and neurosurgery, in Malaysia and the world in general. I also had a vision to startup a neuroscience center and an integrated doctor of neuroscience program in Malaysia, which bore fruit last year.
Peter Binfield (who is well known for what he did to bring scientific publications to the massa scientifica) tweeted me, and thereafter we exchanged email discussions. It did not take long to persuade me to help. I knew what the PeerJ objectives were, and its mission and vision were crystal clear, especially for scientists with quality papers who wanted to publish in good journals but to avoid payment for “printing services” which could cost them three month’s salary. The quality of PeerJ review would be assured, and this would be a “new” way of doing things—not as it had been when publications were controlled by a few, and money had to be spent even to get reprints, making it unaffordable to young scientists in developing countries.
PJ: How many hours a week would you say that you devote to PeerJ, and how does it fit into your schedule?
JA: I devote around 6 hours a week to PeerJ, and the rest to another 6 journals from Frontiers, Journal of Clinical Neurosciences, Clinical Neurology and Neurosurgery, Journal of Pediatric Neurology, and the Malaysian Journal of Medical Sciences, as editor, associate editor, and board member. I juggle this with teaching, research and administration duties.
PJ: How does the peer-review process work at PeerJ?
JA: Periodically, I receive an email from PeerJ, which informs me about articles available for handling. Assuming there is one within my field, I then select it and personally read the manuscript before selecting reviewers (either those suggested by the authors if appropriate; or from my own knowledge). I check the suitability of the reviewers using Google Scholar, Medline, ISI or SCOPUS, and evaluate their ability to provide a good review of the manuscript under my care. The reviewers are then invited. The software will send them follow-up messages in case of no response, and once they have accepted it also sends reminders if their reviews are late. Sometimes I email them directly to ask if they could make the review of PeerJ manuscript a priority. If I have any problems, I contact PeerJ immediately and I usually get a response within minutes (making me wonder if the PeerJ staff actually sleep?) with advice on what to do next. I have actually done the whole process using my smartphone making it pretty mobile.
PJ: How quickly does this process move?
JA: If the manuscript is “heavy” and if it requires lots of cognitive and statistical analyses, I would give 14 days for the review process. Ten days would be given for straightforward manuscripts. Revised manuscripts require that I myself read the whole manuscript, and its references, to co-decide if the manuscript has been revised satisfactorily. We try to get things done quickly and efficiently. The secret is to find a 5 star peer reviewer who is not an ultracrepidarianist!
PJ: What are your thoughts about the value of Open Access publishing?
JA: Open Access publishing is here to stay but nothing is free. People do need to pay some bills so what PeerJ offers is “good” for the “bottom billion” who want to publish their manuscripts and get the world to read them for a cost that is logical for those in under developed or developed countries. We should all do this. I think by 2020 most journals would have adopted a near similar concept.
PJ: What do you see as wrong with the current system of publication?
JA: Why do we scientists—who work hard to get grants, work harder to get results, publish them after being peer reviewed—have to pay super high costs? First, for preprocessing of the manuscripts, and then, to get copies for colleagues who want to read them. These manuscripts’ copyright THEN belongs to a publishing company which was not even involved in grant application process. Even my own library has to pay to download my own manuscripts! Why can’t knowledge be free for the world to read, digest, and understand for the good of mankind? Why is there monopoly and capitalism in scientific publications? Why can’t my publications be read by a Masaï warrior in Africa for free, so that he can use the knowledge gained from the internet to improve his tribe’s well being?
PJ: What would an ideal publishing venue look like?
JA: Simple and friendly upload—even for a librocubicularist— fast peer reviews, no extreme illogical charges for preprocessing, manuscripts uploaded in any language (software allows auto Language editing), feedback process like DHL, real time status of the manuscript, and maybe auto plagiarism checks. All accepted manuscripts would be readable immediately even though the “real” manuscript date of publication is 3 months later, or better still no volumes/issues: manuscripts are published as soon as they are ready and references are quoted with a DOI like number. A google scholar like store house keeps this information so as that it can be read 25 years later.
PJ: What do you feel makes PeerJ relevant to scientists?
JA: It is fast and friendly, adapted to the “bottom billions”—those who want quality scientific information published in a fair and inexpensive way.
PJ: Anything else you might want to talk about?
JA: I have to share a pantun, equivalent to a poem in my native Bahasa Malaysia language. It highlights the importance of knowledge. It literally means that one has to be diligent in seeking knowledge as it is the source of life. How can one do this if it is so costly?
Ramai orang membeli jamu
Di bawah pokok cuaca redup
Bersungguh-sungguh mencari ilmu
Ilmu dicari penyuluh hidup
PJ: Thank you very much for your time.
JA: You are most welcome.
Dont forget that from now until end-2013, we are running a special offer for free PeerJ Publications.