We hope you found this overview helpful.

Have you had experience with overlay publishing? Let us know in the comments!

#scholarlypublishing #openaccess #arXiv

🌯 Wrap up

There are many potential benefits to overlay publishing, including offering highly transparent publishing processes and accelerating the review of path-breaking research, like RR\ID.

^ @mitpress.bsky.social started the first journal like this, @rapidreviews-id.bsky.social.

RR\ID was born out of necessity during the pandemic, initially launched as RR: COVID-19 to facilitate speedy review of COVID papers and help distinguish quality research from questionable studies.

2️⃣ Publishing preprint reviews:

Another emerging model is overlaying reviews on top of preprints. In this case, the journal publishes formal peer reviews of notable and time-sensitive preprints on its publication website (cross-linked to the preprint).

As one of the most wide-reaching preprint repositories, @arxiv.bsky.social has been a natural launch point for many overlay publications.

At Scholastica, we're privileged to work with various arXiv overlay journals, like @ojastro.bsky.social and @quantum-journal.bsky.social.

^ In this case, the journal will seek submissions via a preprint server, vet those papers via formal peer review, and then work with the authors of accepted manuscripts to repost their final articles to the preprint server with a journal DOI, essentially certifying the research was reviewed.

1️⃣ Hosting final articles on a preprint server:

Some overlay journals host their published articles on a preprint server and then link out to those articles from their formal publication website.

In overlay publishing, a journal reviews and links to content hosted on a preprint server.

How does it work? Here are two overlay publishing models to consider:

🧐 First, a quick overview:

Over the past 20 years, the concept of overlay publishing, or layering journals on top of existing repository platforms, has developed from a "theory to test out" to a recognized and growing publishing model.

Sneak peek into the "Technology Needs of Small and Medium Journal Publishers" report from Scholastica and Maverick Publishing Specialists.

➡️ Link to the full report: buff.ly/IyAwSWy

Those are just a few highlights from the survey findings. To learn more, check out the "Technology Needs of Small and Medium Journal Publishers" report here: buff.ly/bSiyvm8

We welcome any questions about the report in the comments! 👇

4️⃣ Participants primary tech challenges were related to resource constraints

When asked about challenges with their publishing technology, more than half of the respondents indicated budget and human resource constraints. The next leading challenge was "integrating with external platforms/tools."

3️⃣ Sentiments toward AI were mixed

Survey respondents had a cautiously optimistic outlook on AI, with 58% reporting they felt "somewhat" or "very" positive about AI's potential to improve scholarly publishing.

2️⃣ AI-generated content and plagiarism were top concerns

Considering the extent to which their org will increase automation in multiple research integrity areas over the next 2 yrs, over 60% of respondents expected increased automation for AI-generated content detection and plagiarism detection.

1️⃣ Research integrity check automation was a priority

Over 60% of respondents said their org would seek to further automate research integrity checks in the next 2 yrs. Publishers of primarily STEM journals were more likely to use research integrity software than those of primarily non-STEM titles.