Hello, we are running a peer review journal on clinical trials (not thomson reuters, we are the new kids). We would like to publish your data, observations, followup trials. We can provide proofreading, editing and publishing for free if the data is genuine and correctly assessed. Contact me at matevz dot leskovsek at gmail
Will you say more about your project? It is hard evaluate based on this description. Thanks!
Someone with the same name is an associate editor at the International Journal of Clinical Research & Trials:
http://www.graphyonline.com/journal/journal_home.php?journalid=IJCRT
Hi there, sorry for late reply. Yes I was thinking about that journal (International Journal of Clinical Research & Trials). Although there are other journals available if the data is appropriate. We want to act disruptive, we read/review a lot, and we work for free, so we would like to welcome QS community to publish with us.
Matevz - I don’t know anything about Graphy Publications but a quick search was not encouraging:
https://scholarlyoa.com/publishers/ (searched for “Graphy Publications”)
http://recursed.blogspot.com/2016/02/yet-another-dubious-journal.html
https://darrengoossens.wordpress.com/science-spammers/
1 Like
Yes, and it has been like that for the last 30 years: Thomson Reuters elite (SCI, SCIX, WOS,…) has been bashing anyone that is out of their club. They dominate the data/trials publication with 60+ days review time, 500+ USD cost,… we are the new guys, running 300+ journals with 2000 reviewers working for pennies, but we are 100 times faster, smarter, younger,… and we have 1000% growth/year. I just offered free services from the smart guys that have brought you the dna vaccines and many other innovations that have practically skipped the clinical trials. If you do disruptive work, I can help you and I can connect you with underwriters at Goldman Sachs, FDA/Meddra folks,… If you are a professor at MIT teaching 2 decades old status quo, good day to you.
I have published over 10 articles in peer-reviewed journals, all of them part of that “Thomson Reuters elite” and wouldn’t consider a second publishing outside of that group.
The reason of publishing is to share those data with the scientific community. The only way those data are trusted is through the peer review process. And even that process is flawed as the Amgen study of cancer papers has shown for example.
So publishing scientific data in an obscure journal, through an obscure process and having who knows how many outsiders writing that paper means there is not much scientific credibility left in that paper once it comes out. Someone with good writing skills can write a book for someone else. Not a scientific article, as it is not about prose but about scientific rigor.
If not going for a “Thomson Reuters elite” journal I would suggest publishing data in a blog.
If you have any QS-related work that you can’t get published elsewhere (e.g. because n=1), this is the way to go:
1 Like
In that case don’t publish, or whatever I guess (did I miss some reasoning in your bragging?). It’s a free offer anyway. Your suggestion to better publish on blog seems weak imho cause any review is better than no review. Get some sleep srsly…
Would you trust McDonald to review the healthiness of your diet?
I receive at least 1 email a week from publishers like this one wanting me to submit a manuscript. If anyone is interested I will be happy to forward you those. You will very quickly be in touch with publishers covering 1,000s of different journals.
Well thanks for the kind offer. Can you post your email here for us to send you such submissions?
Here is an example of the kind of publication that can be made out of quantified self data:
http://www.nature.com/ajg/journal/v111/n7/full/ajg2016193a.html
Since we are now soliciting contributions for journals we have responsibility for… 
Eric linked in his reply above to Drs. Mark Drangsholt and Dawn Lemanne’s presentation of the N-of-1 proposal at the Quantified Self Public Health Symposium. In trying to figure out the correct tactics for bringing a new and credible journal into the world, we were aware that there is a key barrier to overcome: It’s unfair to expect that authors who want to disseminate their ideas effectively will “waste” a high quality paper on an unknown journal. On the other hand, you can’t expect a journal to have credibility and impact for its first issue.
In our case, we were able to work with long time colleagues to start by co-editing a special “focus theme” on N-of-1 research, to be published in an existing journal called Methods of Information in Medicine under the editorship of Sabine Koch.
The guest editors of the Focus Theme on N-of-1, aside from myself, include:
Mark Drangsholt
Martijn de Groot
Fernando Martin-Sanchez
QSPH-2016-CALL-1mx1.5m.pdf (58.0 KB)
Our call for papers is attached. Feel free to send it along to anybody you think might want to submit.
3 Likes
The deadline is November 1st for the N-of-1 issue for Methods of Information in Medicine. Anybody else submitting anything? I went to the site today to start the submission process, but I’m finding it daunting and wanted to know who else/what else people are submitting.
Thanks for posting here Richard - I appreciate it. We moved the deadline to November 20 so you have a bit more time if you want to submit. I know there are several others from the QS world who are submitting.
On the submission process: This is “inherited” from Methods, which is a long established peer-reviewed journal and outside our power to change, BUT, if there is anything in particular that is going wrong for you I can connect you to somebody on the Methods team who I think would be willing to help. I hope you won’t let the forms stop you, if you can just get through to the submit button we will see the paper.