The Cooperative

01.

What is a cooperative ?

It's not a classical corporation, neither a foundation...

A substainable organization

Thanks to a democratic governance and a fair distribution of the benefits, the majority of the result is reinvested in the company.

Democratic governance

Whatever capital you hold, only one vote is granted at general meetings. Officers are elected by all partners for a fixed term.

Fair distribution of benefits

The profits are divided into three categories: a share in the company's legal reserves (15% min), a share in the company's statutory reserve (42,5% min.) And a share in the form of dividends (max ~3%).

All partners ?

All users of the platform are not obliged to become partners.

02.

Why a cooperative for a publisher?

We are convinced that is the most healthy approach to avoid the current oligopolistic situation of private publishers and the non-profit organization. We wanted to integrate all actors (researchers - authors or reviewers - editors - public agencies) in the cooperative.

We are happy to create the first cooperative dedicated to scientific publication. Thanks to the repartition of voices, the cooperative allows to decentralize the governance between every player.

Participate

01

write and review with a collaboration tools

Involve

02

Contribution in the platform allows to obtain rights in the cooperative

And what ?

03

Use your shares to increase your visibility, to have a discount on your next publication, or to earn money.

03.

How does it work ?

It's the classical publishing process except for 2 points:
Pre-prints : Researcher's submission is automatically recorded in an open repository (arXiv, BioRxiv, HAL). The article is protected by an DOI (digital object identifiaction). Many scientists still fear negative consequences (e.g., “Can I still publish in journal “x” if I upload my work to preprint server?”). Many journals have started establishing policies accommodating preprints. In physics, it became the norm.

Open peer review : close peer reviewing is an approach which makes sense if reviewers are experts in the subject of the article. With the increasing number of publications, the avaibility of expert reviewers is problematic. With the open peer reviewing, we increase the chance to find a good reviewer available. Secondly, increasing transparency of publishing process improves the quality of scientific debate. More details are given below

04.

How does open peer-reviewing work ?

After submitting an article like a pre-print, author can make the choice to submit it in publishing process. Then every researcher who is an expert in the field can review or comment it. Everyone can up-vote or down-vote the reviews of others. If a minor or major revision are requested by a reviewer, author can interact directly with reviewers. To leave a review report, the reviewer has to sum up the presented work. The review report allows reviewer to sign the validation or rejection of the article. The associate editor and the editorial secretary are present to accompany the authors and reviewers during the publication process. Anonymity will be optional. Any repeated abuse of anonymity will be identified by the community (with the votes) and anonymity of the abuser will be alleviated.
The fact that the open peer process is a new process, there will be adjustments concerning the rules.

>>Let's discuss it together on Telegram

05.

How are players rewarded ?

We're thinking about it. Simple is the best. If you want to participate to the debate, leave your mail or let's discuss it together on Telegram

06.

What can I do with a share ?

Voting rights in general meetings

Take part in the evolutions of the platform. Give your point of view

Share conversion

(increase your visibility with an helping hand in communication, earn money, have a discount on your next publication)

07.

Why open peer-reviewing ?

Because "you are over your head". With the increasing of publications, finding a good reviewer for your article is getting harder and harder for the associate editors. When you allow to everyone in the field to review an article, you increase the chance to find a good available reviewer. The second reason is the transparency of the process. The community can see the work which has been done by reviewers.