PeerJ author interview

Jeremy Bruenn

Professor, Department of Biological Sciences, SUNY/Buffalo (1987-present)
International Committee on the Taxonomy of Viruses (1986-present)
Senior Scientist, Hauptman-Woodward Medical Research Institute (1999-2002)

Ph.D. University of California, Berkeley
Postdoctoral Research at Oak Ridge National Laboratory and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

- View Jeremy's full list of contributions in PeerJ

In this ‘interview with an author’ we spoke to Jeremy Bruenn, from the Department of Biological Sciences, SUNY/Buffalo. Professor Bruenn is the senior author of the recent PeerJ article “Virus-host co-evolution under a modified nuclear genetic code” which published three weeks ago, and so we were very interested in hearing about his experiences with us.

PJ: With this research, why did you choose to publish in PeerJ rather than some other venue? And what were your initial impressions?

JB: Basically, both Derek and I were fed up with “elite” journals unable to recognize what is novel. Before submission we felt that you had a good editorial policy, good economics and the promise of a fast turn-around.

PJ: Were the author instructions and policies clear to you? Did any stand out for any reason?

JB: I especially like the flexibility with references, which are a great pain, even using Endnote, with some journals. You seem to want to help authors, rather than punish them for minor infractions.

PJ: What was your experience of the review process?

JB: Review was reasonably rapid and you responded courteously when we complained about delayed review (again unlike some elite journals). I think the idea of publishing reviews with the names of reviewers (with their permission) is great and I congratulate you on this innovation.

PJ: And the production process?

JB: Production was fast and flawless and easy (unlike something like PNAS, which is infinitely painful).

PJ: And what did you think to the overall speed of the process?

JB: The speed was fine - basically limited by reviewer cooperation. One editorial improvement might be to eliminate reviewers who are chronically late.

PJ: Was there anything that surprised you with your overall experience?

JB: I am always surprised by fairness in science.

PJ: Now that you have been through the process, what is the advantage for an author to publish their work with PeerJ

JB: The process is fast, cheap, fair, and attractive. If the journal develops a large readership, it will be unstoppable.

PJ: What has been your overall opinion of the process?

JB: I was impressed.

PJ: Would you submit again, and would you recommend that your colleagues submit?

JB: Yes and yes. See above for my reasons.

PJ: Many thanks for your time

JB: Thanks for your interest in my opinion.