New vision for scholarly publishing
is pioneering a new vision for
It combines the
open-access model with
innovative approaches to address
the problems in the current
scholarly publishing system at
the worldwide level.
This revolutionary project is an
attempt to provide a one-stop
efficient forum for publishing
research and creative work from
all disciplines. See what
scholars are saying.
wholeheartedly support the open-access peer-reviewed journals
that SJI publishes. This is the wave of the future for scholarly
publishing. The service that SJI provides is both valuable and
Dr. Linda Di Desidero, Associate Professor, Acting Director,
Communication Studies & Professional Writing, University of
Maryland Univ. College, Maryland.
"SJI is without question a pioneering open-access publisher. I
fully support SJI, and recommend it to all scholars and
researchers." -- Dr Jack Penm, Senior Fellow, School of Finance and Applied Statistics, The Australian National University, Australia.
"The traditional publishing process is systematically used by
established scientists to frustrate and block significant
innovations in science which challenge their professional
position, and which might prejudice their access to research
grants. SJI fulfils a role which is
desperately needed in science publishing, a breath of fresh air in a
traditional scientific world where established scientists maintain a
stranglehold on what new ideas can be circulated. We all need to get
away from the truism that, in the past, "science progresses funeral
Dr. Clive Delmonte,
Associate Lecturer, Open University, United Kingdom.
"My experience with SJI has been of utmost high quality.
The intellectual productions, the review processes, and the
published works do not differ at all, from any other ranked
academic journals. I have found that the parameters, the array
of diversity, and the involvement of the authors is of
enormously high standards. SJI is a pioneer of open access publishing and it abides to the highest criteria of intellectual research, I have ever been exposed."
Dr. Mak Esposito, Director of the Master in International Business, Grenoble Graduate School of Business, France.
Rapid and fair peer-review process
SJI maintains a rapid
turnaround time from submission to publication, averaging three months compared to 6 to 18 months for
most traditional journals. Each submission
is reviewed by three to seven peer reviewers
with final decisions reported to the
author, usually within three months. This is possible because SJI has a growing review board with more than
4,000 active reviewers.
scholars are saying.
"SJI makes time to
publication a matter of months rather than years. The manuscripts
that I have reviewed for SJI have been of excellent quality." --
Dr. Molly M. Lindner, Assistant Professor, Kent State
University--Stark campus, Ohio.
"SJI provides an important service to the global scholarly
community. It offers valuable opportunities for scholars to have
their work published quickly without sacrificing quality in
peer-reviewed journals. It has an innovative vision that
encourages rapid exchange of ideas and information in a highly
interconnected world." --
Dr. Lorraine Madway, Curator and University Archivist, Wichita State
University Libraries, Kansas.
provides a rapid publication pathway for scholars, yet with the
same kind of careful editorial supervision and blind peer-review
that one would expect from the finest academic print journals
and professional societies." -- Dr. Jay Martin Anderson,
Professor of Computer
Franklin & Marshall College,
"I strongly support SJI because it provides an excellent
opportunity for scholars and researchers to publish articles on
a timely fashion and based on a rigorous peer-review process. I believe that open access policies should be implemented by all journals."
--Dr. Hugo Cota-Sanchez, Associate Professor and Herbarium Director, University of Saskatchewan, Canada.
employs a fair and innovative blind
where the referees, authors and
editors remain anonymous
throughout the peer-review
With this pioneering and
innovative approach, SJI is trying to eliminate
some of the flaws of the traditional peer-review system as mentioned
Many authors and researchers expressed concerns about the fairness and integrity of the peer
review process in traditional scholarly
publishing. Many scholars feel that the peer review system in the
traditional publishing world is plagued by elitism, bias, abuse,
and conflict of interest.
Richard Horton, editor of the medical journal The Lancet, has
said "The mistake, of course, is to have thought that peer review
was any more than a crude means of discovering the acceptability —
not the validity — of a new finding. Editors and scientists alike
insist on the pivotal importance of peer review. We portray peer
review to the public as a quasi-sacred process that helps to make
science our most objective truth teller. But we know that the system
of peer review is biased, unjust, unaccountable, incomplete, easily
fixed, often insulting, usually ignorant, occasionally foolish, and
frequently wrong" (source).
Some scholars such as Drs. Peter M. Rothwell, Christopher N.
Alison McCook have argued
that traditional peer review lacks accountability, and may be biased
and inconsistent (source).
Dr. Lena Eriksson, a Swedish researcher in the Cardiff School
of Social Sciences, argued that the traditional peer review system
may make the publishing process susceptible to control by elites and
to personal jealousy (source).
The traditional peer review process may also suppress dissent
against "mainstream" theories as indicated by Dr. Brian Martin
Dr. Juan Miguel Campanario (source),
and Drs. Campanario and Martin
Moreover, research and ideas that are consistent with the
elites' views are more likely to be accepted by premier elitist
journals or publishers than are iconoclastic or revolutionary
findings and ideas (source).
An extensive study by Dr. Tom
international team of scientists has
revealed that the traditional system of peer review, which
has existed in some form for at least 200 years, is flawed.
Dr. Jefferson states "if
peer review were a new medicine, it would never get a license" (source).
Dr. Fytton Rowland of Loughborough University, U.K. has also pointed
out some of the flaws in the traditional peer review system (source).
Studies by Dr. A. J. Meadows, Dr. A. Williamson, and others have
also found that some editors and reviewers were biased and
discriminated against authors based on nationality, native language,
gender, or host institution (source).
Many scholars have argued that there is a need to liberate
the publication process for faster and fairer access.
With its pioneering and
innovative quadruple-blind review system, SJI is trying to eliminate
some of these flaws in the traditional peer-review system. See what
scholars are saying.
"Universal and free access to knowledge has been our only
protection against the types of intellectual tyranny that are
frequently presented as absolute authority and representation of
consensus. Open access journals like SJI have the potential to assess a
manuscript based upon its accuracy and potential rather than the
prestige of the institution and the pen from which it
originates. We are emerging into an international community and
a global consciousness where versatility and multiple approaches
to the dissemination of knowledge, traditional and novel, are
essential. SJI and other open access journals are the expression of
this evolution." --
Dr. Michael A. Persinger, Full Professor of Behavioural
Neuroscience, Psychology and Biology, Laurentian University,
"Open access online journals may hold the future of
academic growth in their hands. Unfortunately, the
pressures of academia have often translated in research
that is no more than pouring old wine in new glasses, at
least as far as humanities is concerned. Most journals
have become the stronghold of dominant ideologies. Self
preservation has made the permeability of new ideas and
approaches almost null. Free open discussion has always
been the best vehicle to raise awareness among the
public. Open access journals like SJI may be the best
vehicle against the petty tyranny of dogmatic
knowledge." --Dr. Antonio Gragera,
Professor of Modern Languages, Texas State University,
"Control of the means of
publication and distribution has long remained the primary means
by which scientific orthodoxy has been defended. By preventing
the publication of innovative ideas, techniques, concepts and
models science has arbitrarily stunted the evolution of our
understanding about how the universe works and our place in it.
By maintaining strict, parochial
control of the means of publication, those who have achieved
ascendancy in one branch of science or another are able to (a)
protect their privileged access to research resources, (b)
prevent incursions into their academic territory by potential
competitors, (c) impose academic, scientific and personal biases
on the literature, and (d) impede the rate of obsolescence of
their own competence. The demonstrated
predilection of conventional peer-reviewed journals to suppress
the publication of non-conforming, controversial, and genuinely
innovative ideas gives rise to the need for a viable
alternative. Open-acces peer-reviewed journals provide an
indispensable, relevant, equally valid alternative to the
mainstream organs of science. I heartily support them and
encourage others to use this means of publication to give others
access to the insights that will lift science out of the dark
ages."--Dr. David G. Yurth, Director of
Science & Technology, The Nova Institute of Technology, Utah.
"Online publication of well reviewed scientific studies is exactly
what academic researchers need. Under the current system print
journals are exacting exorbitant publication fees and editors of
these journals are controlling more and more of what is seen by the
scientific community through arbitrary decisions even before the
articles are sent out to reviewers. The print journals' penchant for
what they claim are superstars to be on their editorial boards
further constrain the openness of scientific works by placing people
with "territory" to protect in a spot where they can "manage" what
appears in print. Nothing is more of an anthem to the concept of
"Scientific Inquiry" than that type of behavior. The ability to
recognize poor experimental design and execution is in the training
we all receive as graduate students. The claim, by the opponents of
online publication journals, that such vehicles will result in
erroneous information cluttering up the literature conveniently
forget all the bogus studies that have been published by print
journals following review by the "superstars" of their review
boards. If Patriotism is the last refuge of Scoundrels, then self
serving editors of print journals are the Judas of free exchange of
thought and scientific inquiry. Peer-reviewed open-access journals provide a much
needed avenue to thwart censorship." -- Dr. Jerold H. Theis,
Professor, Medical Microbiology, School of Medicine, University of
Flexible stylistic rules
maintains minimal stylistic
rules and considers papers that follow
any style manual such as APA,
MLA, or Chicago.
All traditional journals have very restrictive stylistic policies
that unduly create artificial barriers and in effect retard
innovation and creativity. Restricting the authors and
researchers to only one style manual is a flawed concept
for open-access electronic
journals and perhaps for the
future of scholarly publishing.
other journals, SJI is not obsessed with trivial
non issues that make publishing drudgery for many scientists
and authors (e.g. if one missed a comma in the bibliography, or
forgot to italicize the issue number of a journal in the reference
section). For its pioneering and
innovative approaches, SJI has
overwhelming support from scholars, researchers and editors from
across the country and from around
the world. Many scholars and editors are indicating that they
always had reservations about these antiquated
style guides, but did not have the courage to speak up against the
scholars are saying.
"SJI makes being published in
a peer reviewed journal easier in the sense that they dwell on the
important and substantial issues in a paper rather than ephemeral or
non issues that make publishing drudgery for most scientists. That
is what most of us like about SJI. I am very delighted to review
papers for SJI as I have done for other important journals in my
area of expertise." --
Dr. Philip A. Ikomi, Research
Scientist, College of Juvenile Justice and Psychology, Prairie View
A & M University, Texas.
provides an opportunity for researchers and educators to publish
their work without prejudice and
unnecessary drudgery. I have been reviewing manuscripts for SJI in the area of chemistry and biochemistry for at least 2 years. I always used the same standards of review that I use for other journals. I am certain my colleagues that review for SJI do the same. Accordingly, quality work is being published through open access SJI journals. SJI has been a source of literature for my own research and availability of information without the requirement of subscription and other conditions is a blessing."
"I am proud to be among those chosen as reviewers for SJI. SJI is one of the best alternative open-access publications which conducts serious, constructive, and rigorous peer-reviews of manuscripts. SJI is to be commended for its innovative approaches."
--Dr. Ketut Wikantika, Director of Center for Remote Sensing, Institute of Technology Bandung, Indonesia.
SJI does not set the
same limitations on the length
of the article as other
traditional journals do.
our standard journals, an article can be up to 50 pages long.
SJI allows and encourages
authors to deposit their
post-prints in open-access
archives or repositories. The
primary benefit of post-print
self-archiving is reaching a
larger audience which enhances
the visibility and impact of
Our standard scientific
journals are complemented by several unique and innovative journals such
as Journal of Dissertations, Journal of Patents & Trademarks, Journal of
Reviews, Journal of Electronic Books, Journal of Biography &
Autobiography, and Journal of Creative
One of the fastest-growing forums
innovative approaches have received
overwhelming support and
from scholars, researchers and
editors from every corner of the
globe. As a result of such worldwide
attention, SJI is becoming one
of the fastest growing forums
publishing research and creative
work from all disciplines. This
is precisely the reason why some traditional publishers are becoming
hostile to SJI and other open-access journals.
scholars are saying.
Unsolved issues in open-access
Since 1998, a number of small
scale non-profit open-access journals have been launched by various
scientific associations and universities. However, there are a
handful of large-scale for-profit
and non-profit open-access publishers. These open-access publishers have
been unable to come up with economically sustainable business models.
They have not been able to use a business model that is efficient and
profitable for the publisher and at the same time affordable for the
authors and their funding sources. Most of the open-access
journals are sustained by grants and endowments as well as subsidies
from universities, foundations, government agencies, and professional
societies or associations. A handful of large open-access
publishers have sustained their operation without reaching profitability
by continuing to raise the article processing fee which is their primary
source of revenues.
Critics have argued that the escalating processing fees of these
open-access journals are becoming a barrier that may destroy what it
originally wanted to foster. In very few disciplines (other than medical
and life sciences) do scholars have sufficient funds from grants and
other sources to pay such high article processing fees. In many fields,
funding at the university, foundation or government agency level is
scattered, uncommon or rare. Even in medical and life sciences,
many researchers and scholars in less funded institutions as well as
independent researchers are unable to pay such high article processing
fees. In fields such as Social Sciences and Humanities, many authors are
engaged in significant research without grants, and therefore, may not
have the funds to pay for the prohibitive article processing fees.
Reasons for lack of
profitability and affordability
As these academic publishers move
from the noble intentions of the open access movement to that of
hardheaded business realities, they have found themselves in a difficult
situation. They have not been able to move from a relatively sheltered
environment of the academic enterprises supported by grants, endowments
and subsidies into the dynamic, changing, and competitive marketplace of
Web commerce. Moreover, many of these open access publishers are led by
scholars from the academia, whose experience is in securing grant
funding and delivering research results. This expertise is quite
different from what is required in an ongoing Web-based service
One of the reasons for the difficulty in reaching profitability is that
the major open-access publishers maintain a very high cost structure of
operation which carries extremely high overhead and administrative
costs. These include a plethora of big-expense offices and a stable of
high salaried professional editors, executives, programmers, and database
For a major traditional journal, the average cost of producing an
article is approximately $2750. For open-access publishing, the cost is
in the range of $500–$2500 per article (source).
These expenses are split among editorial costs, electronic composition
and production, journal information system, manuscript management
system, electronic archiving, overhead expenses, and administrative
costs. The publication fee or article processing fee must cover the
costs of publishing the accepted article plus the cost of reviewing the
number of articles the journal rejects for each accepted article.
Such high cost structure demands sizeable revenue streams to offset it.
However, the major open-access journals have not explored all possible
streams of revenues. Instead, they have relied heavily on
processing fees and institutional memberships that pay the article processing
fees for university faculty and researchers. However, as they continued
to raise their fees, it has become unaffordable for many authors and
There is also a serious problem with the fee structure of major
open-access journals. In many cases, their article processing fee or
institutional membership fee is not scalable. They charge a flat article
processing fee for publishing each article no matter how many authors
collaborate in writing the article. If an article is written by
one author, he or she pays the same high processing fee as an article
that has five authors. This fee structure is not fair or affordable for
an individual author
whose research may not have been supported by a grant and therefore, he
or she has to pay the processing fee out of pocket.
The major open-access journals also charge a flat fee for their
institutional membership. Such membership fees have also been rising at
a rapid pace. Many institutions have begun to cancel their memberships.
The major open-access publishers expected academic institutions to
support author fees with massive reallocations from library acquisitions
budgets. However, relying too heavily on article processing fees puts
open-access journals at a disadvantage compared to traditional journals,
which are supported centrally through library budgets. Many
universities have pointed out that libraries cannot simply transfer
their acquisitions budget from subscriptions to open access overnight,
since access to the subscription-only journals is important for their
The business models followed by the major open-access journals have
failed to provide a viable long-term revenue base built upon logical and
scalable options. They have failed to generate surplus revenue for
reinvestment over time that will allow them to evolve and grow.
SJI is the first global initiative to combine the
open-access model with unique and innovative ideas and
approaches to address the problems in the current scholarly
publishing system at the worldwide level. As a strategic
response to market demand, SJI is pioneering a new vision for
SJI leadership has a very clear
sense of its mission and vision, and a passion for pursuing it. As we
provide high quality services at lesser cost, SJI continues to thrive
and our base of support grows stronger every day, while other
open-access journals struggle to merely sustain their operations with
the help of grants and institutional subsidies. Our journals are logical
alternative to high-priced subscription-based print journals as well as
high fee-based open-access journals.
SJI has been able to attain affordability and sustainability using a lean
publishing model. SJI is able to reduce costs of publishing by
requiring the authors to perform the final formatting of their articles
for publication. The authors are also asked to seek professional editing
services if SJI reviewers and editors have recommended such revisions.
SJI has developed several alternative
models of sustainability and is using innovative ways
to generate revenues that are missing from other journals. We have
found numerous creative ways and a wide range of revenue streams that
allow us to share and distribute the costs of open-access publishing
across all interested stakeholders—not just article processing fees from
authors. Such alternative streams of revenues help us keep our article
processing fees low enough to attract authors and
researchers who do not have sponsors or grants, and consequently, cannot
afford to pay the high processing fees of other major publishers.
Unlike other journals, SJI has a
scalable article processing fee structure which makes it affordable for
authors and their funding agencies. The experience of SJI clearly
indicates that researchers and their host institutions and funding
agencies are willing to pay reasonable and affordable article processing
fees for the sake of faster and fairer access and greater exposure of