A model to manage manuscripts, submissions, reviews, and open access
Lately, there are discussions (e.g., http://janvitek.github.io/whoowns.html) about access to scientific work and publications. The topics range from copyright to work, copyright to manuscripts, paid vs unpaid access to publications, access to past reviews, submission of past reviews with current submissions, double blinded review process, single blinded review process, supporting artifact submission, and the list goes on.
Here’s a model to manage manuscripts, reviews, submissions, and open access.
Community maintains a repository of manuscripts (something similar to arxiv.org) along with associated reviews.
Authors add new manuscripts or revisions of existing manuscripts to the repository. Authors control access to revisions of their manuscripts that have not been published at any venue. All revisions of published manuscripts in the repository will be open for public access.
To submit a revision of a manuscript to a venue (e.g., conference, journal), authors submit a link to the revision to the venue. Once submitted revisions cannot be updated or deleted. Reviewers access submissions via the submitted link.
All reviews of a revision of a manuscript are recorded in the repository as part of the revision at the end of the review process. This information cannot be edited or deleted from the repository.
Authors have indefinite read-only access to reviews associated with their reviewed manuscripts but not to the information about reviewers. Reviewers have indefinite read-only access to their reviews but not to the reviewed manuscripts. Chairs have read-only access to both reviewed manuscripts and associated reviews along with author and reviewer information for the duration of their conference.
Past revisions and reviews are available to current reviewers.
When a revision of a manuscript is submitted to a venue, all reviewed revisions of the manuscript are accessible (in read-only mode) to current reviewers along with any associated reviews for the duration of the review period. Current reviewers will not have access to information about past reviewers.
As for funding the above model, every community member (e.g., ACM, IEEE) can contribute a nominal amount as joining fees or as yearly fees. As an alternative, contributions from various organizations (e.g., universities, science foundations, government agencies, research labs) could fund the model.
What do you think?