OK I have thirty seconds left.

OK So we'll do a British brief
history of molecular vision and

we'll sort of do it in
the The Good The Bad and

the ugly version here so
we'll start off with so much and good.

I'm sure that everybody remembers the
first moment that you ever saw the web and

you probably said something like
this is this right or wrong.

One person yet
to OK three three admit to it.

The rest.

Said wow this isn't this is perfect for
something else.

OK So this is what happened to us
basically fifteen odd years ago.

And within.

Probably two or three months of first
seeing the Web We had a sub a an editorial

board of about fifty or sixty of
the leading vision research scientists.

To start a new journal
based on the web and

web presence and that sort of thing.

So there was sort of a niche area
within the vision research community

that had not yet
understood work come to terms with.

Recombinant D.N.A. technology with D.N.A.

sequencing with genetics with that
sort of thing they were traditional.

Electrophysiologist spur of the most part.

So they weren't thinking in
terms of molecular biology and

we were and where were we going to publish
our data said the bio chemists and

molecular biologists were thinking.

We need a new journal.

That covers these sorts of areas
within that sort of community.

So we were looking for
something like this.

And lo and behold the web came along and
it sort of reading comprehension and

in terms of sort of understanding what

Tim Berners Lee was after that he was
intending to come up with a system for

scientific communication for
scholarly communication.

So a quick summary of the good stuff
about molecular vision we were certainly

among the very.

First web journals in biology and
medicine we we may be the first but

we're not sure if we're first or
second or maybe even third.

We've been doing this for
fifteen odd years.

We routinely now publish
in the ballpark of

two hundred to three
hundred articles per year.

We reject about an equal number.

And within our community of vision
scientists we are second only

to the flagship dominant
journal in the area.

And we're not going to overtake
that it's the dominant

journal in the area it's
the dominant society but

we've we are fully access open access
we are fully open access immediately.

We have absolutely no charges to authors.

We've never charged anybody anything ever.

OK So
those are the virtues of molecular vision

a few other minor sort of fact let's
in terms of immediacy impact and

in in immediacy index
an impact factor we are.

Suppose pretty well rated in terms of just
the number sheer number of publications

that we give we're probably in the top
five six percent of all journals.

It just in terms of sheer
numbers of publications.

This is what web site looks like W.W.W.
and old is the word.

What our authors are primarily interested
in is the typeset version of the article.

This one happens to be published by
a group that's mostly from India.

You can certainly imagine that they
would have no capability to pay

two thousand dollars
othar processing charge.

We do not do that.

Do we think it's good stewardship of
journals to make these sorts of services

available regardless of whether
the author can pay or not.

Other good things that we do we
convert all of our articles to X.M.L..

Well that's valid according to the
National Library of medicines D T V This

gets submitted to to the National Library
of Medicine then are our authors do not

have to communicate their papers
to a Pub Med Central themselves.

That saves actually a lot of work and
headache on work for them.

This also of course serves as perhaps the
ultimate archival version of the article.

Of course that is backed up of course at
Emory but it's backed up yet to the public

and central Pub Med And we're also
backed up in various other ways.

You may have heard of locks or
coins where other sorts of things.

So lots of copies keep stuff safe.

So the bad part about molecular division.

Going forward we need to figure out
ways to pay for molecular tissue.

By and large the journal is paid for
out of the courtesy and generosity

of the chairman of the department of
ophthalmology at Emory University and

up until this point he's been able
to come up with the debt to pay for

an editorial assistant for us and

you know whether you pay that authorial
system to call it forty K. in salary.

Ten K. in fringe benefits.

We need to do some copy editing
that's about thirty thousand a year.

And we need miscellaneous software
services so currently rather than using

O.J. asked that you may be referred we've
used a service called Eagle press and

unfortunately Egil price is not free but
it's pretty rugged and

it's pretty durable and their site is up
all the time in that sort of business and

for miscellaneous historic purposes
we've continued to use them so

that takes up a chunk
of change right there.

We need to buy software.

I can't emphasize that.

There are the stuff is not free.

So we've got to come up with
one hundred thousand a year and

I'll just propose a model and again.

This is may seem bad to you but.

Or even ugly to you but
what we're proposing is that

two hundred of the best libraries
on the planet should underwrite us.

To the tune of each five hundred
five hundred dollars a year.

That would provide us with our
hundred thousand a year and

the benefits are of course no author fees.

No subscriber fees instant
access open access.

Standard Creative Commons
three zero sorts of licenses.

So that's where we're at right now so
this is what you know

this is the the batter ugly I can't decide
which but this is what we're going to try.

We'd like feedback from
you will this work or not.

So what are the historical major problems
if you're starting up a new journal.

Well the big thing is winning
the acceptance of the state of

the community that you're serving.

You have to be indexed by
Pub Med That's not a trivial exercise

to get into pub med.

And you have to have
a decent impact factor.

You just can't get around those sorts of
things because of the practicalities of

the current ten years system.

Software I put on there because
we always have to buy software or

get services conclusions or

make four major things that we really
need to mention before I can cut off.

Number one the scholars truly need
to be involved all the way through

the final step of actually
communicating to their reader.

It's not OK to just simply say I'd
submitted my article it's been accepted.

It's just not sufficient.

You have to be involved all the way to
the end making sure that your readers

actually read your article.

Running in establishing a journal is
not as difficult as you might think.

You have to have the right community and

you have to have a degree of status within
your community before you can do that.

It takes several years to jump through all
the miscellaneous hoops of acceptance like

getting into Pub Med the in factor impact
factor you really have to stick with it.

You have to commit to at
least five six seven years.

Otherwise you know it just won't work.

If you have software I would strongly
urge you to share it with everybody.

That really reduces an awful lot of
the costs of running a scientific journal.

And last I'd like to thank
my CO editors in chief.

Bob Church in jest but right.

The great thing about these sorts of
electronic journals is is that you can

spread the workload amongst
a large number of volunteers so.

It would have been a failure for

a single individual to serve
as the editor in chief.

It really made a whole lot more sense to
divide the work load in into thirds and

Bob church and Jeff but
right have stepped forward to do that so.

The last funding.

I really have to think
the ophthalmology department.

Funded the bulk of
the bulk of the work and

embryos provided us with the servers
that we use to disperse the journal.

So thank you very much.

And I'll just close with that.

Slide which I like.