Cureus Introduces ‘Social Ownership’ to the Internet Age

Cureus Introduces ‘Social Ownership’ to the Internet Age

New Co-Op Model Turns Contributors into Owners

Cur&#275us, the new generation medical journal, today announced a new co-operative ownership structure that enables those who produce, review and contribute medical research to the Cur&#275us eco-system to share in the company’s financial success.

Cureus will reward them for their contributions with shares in the company.
For the first time in the Internet Age, a Web-based company whose business success is based on content generated by its end-user audience will reward them for their contributions with shares in the company. With Cur&#275us, the key stakeholders who contribute to the medical research journal, including the authors, reviewers and editors, can share in the company’s success through a co-op ownership program that converts their work into equity depending on their level of participation.

Under the current system of medical publishing, medical researchers, authors and reviewers receive no compensation for their work. In fact these all-important contributors must relinquish copyright, and in many cases, even pay to get their scientific papers published or access their own paper post publication. Ultimately, the journal and publisher reaps all financial benefits as well as much of the recognition.

As part of its mission to revolutionize medical publishing, Cur&#275us’ publishing model returns control of published research to those who create it – giving content creators full copyright and enabling free access to all readers. The Cur&#275us co-op ownership model builds on this foundation by implementing a system, which tangibly rewards both physician and PhD contributors.

“We believe that the current model for medical research publishing is fundamentally broken,” said Tobin Arthur, president, Cur&#275us. “The future success of Cur&#275us’ depends on the efforts of its users, including authors, reviewers and other workers. Our ground-breaking publishing model recognizes and rewards the critical efforts of these individuals.”

How Cur&#275us Social Ownership Works
When joining Cur&#275us, members are automatically assigned an account meter to their profile. Each time they publish, review or score a paper, produce a medical poster or other type of contribution they earn points. At the end of the calendar year, the top point-earners on the site will be offered an opportunity to convert those points into equity in the company.

“The current medical publishing model offers very little incentive to those participating in the process,” said, Thomas J. Fogarty MD, Fogarty Institute for Innovation. “Cur&#275us puts its money where its mouth is by giving contributors the recognition and compensation they deserve.”

About Cur&#275us
Based in Palo Alto, California, Cur&#275us is the new generation medical journal. Leveraging the power of an online, crowd-sourced platform, Cur&#275us promotes medical research by focusing the publishing process on the people who create it, resulting in better research, faster publication and easier access for everyone. Leading physicians from all over the world have joined the unparalleled Cur&#275us Editorial Board to lend their support to the medical publishing revolution. For more information, visit

Changing The Rules of Traditional Medical Publishing

Changing The Rules of Traditional Medical Publishing

We don’t typically associate rejection with elation but a recent article in The Scientist suggests that getting your academic paper is not be such a bad thing.

A study of rejected academic papers compared their citation history after eventual publication with those never having been rejected. Somewhat surprisingly there appears to be upside to the initial repudiation.

Vincent Calgano, an evolutionary biologist and ecologist at the Institute for Agricultural Research in Sophia Antipolis, France gathered and studied data from The Thomson Reuters Institute for Scientific Information Web of Knowledge citation indexing service. They studied papers from 16 different fields published between 2006 and 2008 and emailed more than 200,000 corresponding authors from the papers. Not surprisingly, papers that were rejected tended to be resubmitted to journals with a lower Impact Factor.

Wikipedia killed me.

What did surprise researchers was the fact that these previously rejected papers tended to be cited more frequently than papers that didn’t go through the submission gauntlet.

The research group concluded that papers that get rejected are often rewritten and polished more than others. This continued editing may have improved the paper, therefore enhancing its likelihood to be cited. Alternatively, authors only went to the effort of resubmitting a manuscript when they were convinced the paper did have merit.

Regardless of why rejected papers might get cited more frequently, this study illustrates the absurdity of the traditional review process in an era where technology has allowed us to evolve. For instance, it has been convincingly demonstrated that Wikipedia is at least as accurate as the “expertly” edited Encyclopedia Britannica and that Top Songs on iTunes are far more reflective of broad public interest than the Billboard 100.

Cureus has designed its medical publishing system so that editorial capriciousness, which is common to traditional peer review, is replaced by intelligent crowd-sourced scoring. The Cureus Scholarly Impact Quotient (SIG) is designed to separate the wheat from the chaff.

So while all papers are published, only the best articles with the highest SIQ tend to be read by the most number of people. Lower quality papers are still available to the public online. While they may not be as popular as the higher scored paper, they will serve as a valuable resource for a niche segment. And all of this content is good for the scientific community at large.

Ultimately the Cureus SIQ system facilitates a process for a much wider body of ideas to enter the conversation of scientific discourse. Unlike the traditional review process where individual papers can be “killed” as a result of personal bias, politics or a bad day at the office, crowd intelligence becomes a core filter.