PeerJ author interview

PeerJ PrePrints was launched this April, and we were pleased to see that the second submission we received was a preprint that extended the story for one of our published articles. Dr Johnson Thie from the University of Sydney was a co-author on the PeerJ article “Validation of the Emotiv EPOC® EEG gaming system for measuring research quality auditory ERPs” and also the author of PeerJ PrePprint #2 (“A marker circuit to enable recording of auditory evoked potential using a wireless EEG system (EPOC) and a portable computer”). Being able to follow up on a ‘formal’ publication with a related, but more informal ‘preprint’ publication is a huge advantage of preprints, and so we wanted to talk to Dr Thie to learn about his reasons for doing so.

PJ: Perhaps you can briefly explain the research you published in PeerJ and PeerJ PrePrints?

JT: I am involved in electrophysiology, biomedical engineering and cognitive science. My part has been mainly in the engineering side where I develop instruments and perform signal analysis. My focus is to make physiological recording on human/animals non-invasive, easier and reliable.

I’ve been working on this particular project for about one year although I’ve been in this field for 10 years in both industry and academia.

PJ: You submitted an article to the PeerJ journal and then followed up with a preprint to PeerJ PrePrints. Can you explain why?

JT: The paper submitted to PeerJ was a research paper while the paper to PeerJ PrePrints was more about some of the technical work that was involved in the research.

PJ: And what advantages did the preprint server provide you?

A shorter time to publication. A suitable location to publish information that is more complex than a blog post. And the fact that having a preprint allows people to cite the work.

I already had a relevant paper published in PeerJ, and the second paper which extended/supplemented the first paper was a suitable fit for PeerJ PrePrints.

PJ: What was your impression of the PrePrint process?

JT: Flexibility in the formatting is nice. Perhaps in future, a latex style file/template can be provided to make formatting uniform and still easy.

PJ: And what was your experience of the overall PeerJ process?

JT: My experience has been positive. The submission process was similar to other journals. The flexibility in formatting was nice so I didn’t have to change the sections/headings and bibliography styles. It was easy to submit a paper, less hassle in formatting and a quicker process.

The review process for the PeerJ journal was quick, and the feedback from the reviewers was generally positive. The approval process for the PeerJ PrePrints publication only took 1-2 days.

The overall speed was quick, especially from acceptance to publication. In other journals, the time from acceptance to publication could take 1-3 months. If anything, it was the quick process to publication which surprised me the most at PeerJ.

PJ: Did any of your colleagues express anything to you about your publication with PeerJ PrePrints?

JT: They are glad that the technical work of the research paper was published in PeerJ PrePrints since people have sent them various inquiries regarding the instruments that I developed for the research work.

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

JT: Open access is particularly beneficial for people in industry who are not affiliated to a university and hence have no free access to journals. PeerJ in particular has a lower cost than the open access options provided by more established journals.

PJ: Would you submit again?

JT: Yes I would submit suitable papers again given the reasons stated earlier.

PJ: Great news, we are glad that you enjoyed your experience! Thank you for your time.