Interview With an Author – Jeremy Bruenn

In today’s ‘interview with an author’ we spoke to Jeremy Bruenn, from the Department of Biological Sciences, SUNY/Buffalo. Professor Bruenn is the co-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 over 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.

If you like what you hear about PeerJ, then try us for yourself. PeerJ is now open for your submissions at

You may also like...