PC Slower Than It Used to Be?
A free scan shows the junk files, broken settings and background clutter dragging Windows down - then fixes them in one click.Free scan · Windows 10 & 11Outdated Drivers Are Slowing You Down
One free scan finds every outdated or missing driver and matches the right update for your exact hardware.Free scan · exact hardware matchIn February 2013, two services proposed different ways to change scholarly publishing: PeerJ tied open-access publication to author membership, while Rubriq offered portable peer review that researchers could take to another publisher. One shifted how publication was funded; the other aimed to reduce repeated review work after rejection. The launch-era details below describe what Chemistry World reported then—not current prices, availability, or business status.
What problem were the models trying to address?
In the account published by Chemistry World on 21 February 2013, subscription publishing generally meant authors could publish without paying a publication charge, while readers or their institutions paid for access. Open-access publishing made articles freely available to readers, but publishers often covered costs through charges to authors—charges that the report said could reach thousands of pounds.
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
PeerJ and Rubriq addressed different parts of that arrangement. PeerJ proposed a membership-based way to finance an open-access journal. Rubriq proposed separating peer review from a single journal’s submission process so that a review could travel with a paper to another publisher.
How did PeerJ’s membership model work?
Chemistry World reported that PeerJ charged a one-off membership fee of $299 (£196) in 2013. Under the model described, membership allowed unlimited submissions and publications. Every author named on a paper had to be a member, up to a limit of 12 authors. The report also noted reduced membership rates with limits on submissions.
#1 Best Overall
PeerJ had announced itself the previous June and, according to the report, launched the week before publication with its first 30 papers. These are figures reported at launch; they do not establish the journal’s later prices or policies.
How was Rubriq’s portable peer review different?
In conventional journal-by-journal review, a paper rejected by one journal may need to begin the review process again elsewhere. Rubriq’s proposal was to provide an independent review that an author could carry to another publisher, potentially avoiding some duplicated effort and delay.
Rank #2
- Dated Academic Organizer with a weekly view
- Weekly format: Days of the week across the top, dated August-June with room for seven subjects down the side
- Monthly calendars (August-June) for long-term planning, daily schedule (2) at beginning of book for quick reference
- Priorities list, before school block, parent-teacher communication, interesting and thought provoking trivia on every planner week
- 8.5" x 11"
Research Square, identified in the report as Rubriq’s owner, planned to charge authors and pass part of the fee to referees. Chemistry World reported a $500 fee in 2013 and said the service initially covered immunology, cancer research, and microbiology. Wider coverage across biological and medical sciences was described as a future expansion, not as an already available feature. The article also noted that Research Square had launched a pre-submission editing service.
Free tools Windows power users keep installed
One-click scans. No signup required.
How do the two approaches compare?
| Question | PeerJ | Rubriq |
|---|---|---|
| Who paid? | Authors paid a one-off membership fee, as reported in 2013 by Chemistry World. | Authors were to pay a service fee; part was to go to referees, as reported in 2013 by Chemistry World. |
| What did the payment fund? | Membership in an open-access journal, with unlimited submissions and publications under the reported model. | Independent peer review intended to be portable between publishers. |
| Where did it fit? | Within the journal’s publication and funding model. | Across journal submissions, as a review that could accompany a paper elsewhere. |
| Who was covered? | All listed coauthors had to be members, up to 12 authors per paper under the reported terms. | Initially, researchers in immunology, cancer research, and microbiology; broader biological and medical sciences were planned. |
What did the experiments show—and what did they not show?
The report framed both services as departures from prevailing publishing models and suggested their success could affect the industry. That was a statement of possibility, not evidence that either approach transformed scholarly publishing. The article establishes how the models were presented at launch, but does not establish what happened later to PeerJ’s fee structure, Rubriq’s review service, or Research Square’s editing offer.
Rank #3
- 8 1/2" x 11" book for lesson plans and grades
- Combines W101 and R6080
- W101-Lesson Plan Book for 7 classes/days horizontally across the top
- R6080-Teacher Record Book for 6-8 weeks. 36 Student names. Large blocks.
The distinction between the proposals remains useful: PeerJ changed how an open-access journal could collect publication funding, while Rubriq sought to make peer review less dependent on a single journal’s decision. The reported charges, policies, and subject coverage are historical details from February 2013 and should not be treated as current offers.
Quick Recap
Rank #4
- 8 1/2" x 11" book for lesson plans and grades
- Combines 8WPL and R9310:
- 8WPL-Wide Lesson Plan book with unique 7-1/2" fold out extension for 8 teaching periods per day
- R9310-Wide Record Book for up to 10 Weeks
- Enough lines for 50 students on each page, with extra-large grade recording squares
Product prices and availability are accurate as of the date/time indicated and are subject to change. Any price and availability information displayed on Amazon at the time of purchase will apply.
