Do these 3 things before closing this tab:
1Fix the driver behind crashes, sound loss and screen glitches2Repair Windows errors before they cause bigger problems3Scan for outdated or missing drivers - takes under a minuteiTechGuides is reader-supported. When you buy through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases. Learn more
In February 2013, two services explored different ways to change scholarly publishing: PeerJ tied open-access publication to author membership, while Rubriq proposed reviews that researchers could take to another publisher. One shifted how publication was funded; the other aimed to make peer review more portable. The launch-era account does not establish either service’s current pricing or availability.
What publishing problem were the services addressing?
The 2013 report described two common funding arrangements. In subscription publishing, authors could publish without a charge while readers paid for access. In open-access publishing, readers could access articles freely, while publishers often funded publication through author charges that could reach thousands of pounds. These are broad descriptions, not a complete account of every journal’s business model.
PeerJ and Rubriq approached different parts of that picture. PeerJ tested a membership-funded route to open access. Rubriq focused on what happens to peer review when a journal rejects a manuscript.
What’s actually slowing this PC down?
Pick the symptom - the matching free tool is one click away.
How did PeerJ’s membership model work?
Chemistry World reported that PeerJ charged a one-off membership fee of $299 (£196) in 2013. Under the model described, membership allowed unlimited submissions and publications, but every author listed on a paper had to be a member, up to 12 authors. Reduced membership rates were also available, with limits on submissions.
#1 Best Overall
The journal had announced itself the previous June and, according to the report, launched in the week before publication with its first 30 papers. The fee and launch details are historical figures reported in February 2013; they should not be read as current pricing or proof of present operations.
What was Rubriq’s portable peer review?
Rubriq proposed a review that an author could carry to another publisher rather than begin peer review again from scratch after rejection. The idea was to make an independent review reusable across a journal transition, potentially reducing duplicated review work.
Rank #2
- Dated Academic Organizer with a weekly view
- Weekly format: Days of the week across the top, dated August-June with room for seven subjects down the side
- Monthly calendars (August-June) for long-term planning, daily schedule (2) at beginning of book for quick reference
- Priorities list, before school block, parent-teacher communication, interesting and thought provoking trivia on every planner week
- 8.5" x 11"
Research Square, identified in the report as Rubriq’s owner, planned to charge authors and pass part of the fee to referees. Chemistry World reported a $500 fee at launch, initially for researchers in immunology, cancer research, and microbiology; wider biological and medical sciences were described as a future expansion. Research Square had also launched a pre-submission editing service. The report does not establish later service availability, pricing, or expansion.
How did the two experiments differ?
| Question | PeerJ | Rubriq |
|---|---|---|
| Who paid, according to the 2013 report? | Authors paid a one-off membership fee. | Authors were to pay a service fee, with part passed to referees. |
| What did the payment fund? | Membership in an open-access journal’s publication model. | Independent peer review intended to travel with a manuscript. |
| Where did it fit in publishing? | Within a journal’s funding and publication arrangement. | Between publishers, after a rejection or during a journal change. |
| Who was covered? | All authors listed on a paper were required to be members, up to 12 authors; reduced rates had submission limits. | Initially, researchers in immunology, cancer research, and microbiology; broader biological and medical coverage was described as a future expansion. |
What did the launch report establish—and what did it not?
The report presented both services as departures from established publishing approaches and suggested their success could affect the industry. That was a statement about their potential at launch, not evidence that either model transformed scholarly publishing. Its figures and service descriptions document what Chemistry World reported in February 2013; they do not establish what happened later to PeerJ’s fee structure, Rubriq, or Research Square’s editing offer.
Quick Recap
Rank #4
- 8 1/2" x 11" book for lesson plans and grades
- Combines 8WPL and R9310:
- 8WPL-Wide Lesson Plan book with unique 7-1/2" fold out extension for 8 teaching periods per day
- R9310-Wide Record Book for up to 10 Weeks
- Enough lines for 50 students on each page, with extra-large grade recording squares
Rank #3
- 8 1/2" x 11" book for lesson plans and grades
- Combines W101 and R6080
- W101-Lesson Plan Book for 7 classes/days horizontally across the top
- R6080-Teacher Record Book for 6-8 weeks. 36 Student names. Large blocks.
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
