> Consider finding an academic niche in which to really make this product sing; a community that is receptive to the idea. If the PoC can be shown to work in on

> Consider finding an academic niche in which to really make this product sing; a community that is receptive to the idea. If the PoC can be shown to work in one community, neighboring fields can then point at it and say, "see, this thing is working over in community X. Journal Y is going to take three months to get this reviewed, and this paper is kind of a throwaway -- let's try X and see how it goes." > arXiv started in a narrow niche that absolutely needed it, perhaps the same will happen here. That's very similar to my thinking - I'm actually hoping to start with the file drawer problem. When we're ready for open beta, put out a call for file drawered papers. It's also been suggested that we start as pre-print, while being clear about the ultimate intentions to become a journal, and go from there. Maybe even reach out to the existing pre-print servers to partner with them in some way. > Long-term, I'm not sure how this system will pay for itself. Keep costs low and dig in for the long haul. Academia can have very low switching costs (a professor can try your service on a whim), but has enough inertia that it can take decades to turn the ship (deans need to know a prospective hire's impact factor in top-tier journals). Noted. The thought is that it could be funded through donations, grants, and eventually by the institutions if it gains enough traction. But yeah, it's becoming clear that grants at the beginning may be the only way. We'll see how much we get in terms of donations once we hit open beta. > Also, as a referee -- pay referees what their time is worth. For real. You'll get real good referees if you do. ...well... the idea is actually to crowd source refereeing and review. And for people to do it because, well, it needs done. Everyone wants good reviews and everyone knows refereeing needs done, so we ask everyone to share the job equally and try to make it as easy and low friction as possible. The pre-publish review system is purely editorial review, aimed at helping authors prepare for publishing. The refereeing system is post-publish, it happens through the voting.