One suggestion for a new model of academic publishing | Chris Sampson

"... A simple regulatory framework  ... Regulation is costly to maintain and enforce, so it’s often best to try and keep it to a minimum. Nevertheless, academic publishing is big business, so pussyfooting around won’t achieve much; strong policies need to be drawn up. In my proposed model, research resulting from government funding (and government funding resulting from research) should be subject to two conditions: All outputs must be published with open access and peer review of all publications must be handled by an independent third party. These two requirements would be enforced by bodies that fund research, such as the NIHR and Research Councils UK, or the NIH in the US. They would also be necessary criteria for inclusion in REF (and its international equivalents). We’re close to achieving the first criteria, but I’m not aware of any discussion of the second ... In this world, the process of publication would go as follows: [1] Academic writes paper; [2] Academic submits paper to peer review company; [3] Peer review company obtains reviews from numerous academics, including reviews of reviews; [4] Journal editors are given access to the manuscript and all reviews; [5] Journal editors ‘bid’ for the right to publish the article; [6] Academic selects journal for publication; [7] Paper is published.  The necessary organisations for this model already exist. Creative commons provides a variety of open access licences. Companies like OAK have popped up to deal with the administration of publication fees. Peerage of science is a company providing portable peer review, with growing interest from open access publishers. As the market expands, other companies would inevitably enter the arena ..."