\documentclass{article}
\usepackage{fullpage}
\usepackage{parskip}
\usepackage{titlesec}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage[colorlinks = true,
            linkcolor = blue,
            urlcolor  = blue,
            citecolor = blue,
            anchorcolor = blue]{hyperref}
\usepackage[natbibapa]{apacite}
\usepackage{eso-pic}
\AddToShipoutPictureBG{\AtPageLowerLeft{\includegraphics[scale=0.7]{powered-by-Authorea-watermark.png}}}

\renewenvironment{abstract}
  {{\bfseries\noindent{\abstractname}\par\nobreak}\footnotesize}
  {\bigskip}

\titlespacing{\section}{0pt}{*3}{*1}
\titlespacing{\subsection}{0pt}{*2}{*0.5}
\titlespacing{\subsubsection}{0pt}{*1.5}{0pt}

\usepackage{authblk}

\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage[space]{grffile}
\usepackage{latexsym}
\usepackage{textcomp}
\usepackage{longtable}
\usepackage{tabulary}
\usepackage{booktabs,array,multirow}
\usepackage{amsfonts,amsmath,amssymb}
\providecommand\citet{\cite}
\providecommand\citep{\cite}
\providecommand\citealt{\cite}
% You can conditionalize code for latexml or normal latex using this.
\newif\iflatexml\latexmlfalse
\providecommand{\tightlist}{\setlength{\itemsep}{0pt}\setlength{\parskip}{0pt}}%

\AtBeginDocument{\DeclareGraphicsExtensions{.pdf,.PDF,.eps,.EPS,.png,.PNG,.tif,.TIF,.jpg,.JPG,.jpeg,.JPEG}}

\usepackage[utf8]{inputenc}
\usepackage[english]{babel}



\begin{document}

\title{Scholarly Publishing: Unnecessarily Slow in the Modern Era.\\}


 \author{The Authorea Team}


\date{}

\begingroup
\let\center\flushleft
\let\endcenter\endflushleft
\maketitle
\endgroup




Scholarly publishing is slow, really slow. ~The time from submission to
publication takes on average one year, likely an underestimate
considering the fact that many authors are forced to submit to multiple
publishers. ~\selectlanguage{english}
\begin{figure}[h!]
\begin{center}
\includegraphics[width=1.00\columnwidth]{figures/submission-time/submission-time}

\end{center}
\end{figure}

Data/Figure from:
\href{http://openaccesspublishing.org/oa11/article.pdf}{The publishing
delay in scholarly peer-reviewed
journals}\href{http://openaccesspublishing.org/oa11/article.pdf}{}\\

Arguably, the publishing process is necessarily slow because work must
make it's way through a rigorous peer review system. This would probably
be okay if such a system were in fact effective. However, research on
the effectiveness of peer review shows that most major errors go
unnoticed by reviewers.
(\cite{Schroter_2008},~\cite{Godlee_1998},~\cite{Baxt_1998},~\cite{Smith_2010})\\

So-called ``stings'' have shown that:\\

\begin{enumerate}
\tightlist
\item
  computer generated papers can pass peer review (\cite{Labb__2012}),\\
\item
  made up work can pass peer review (\cite{Bohannon_2013}),\\
\item
  and that peer review can turn out to reject studies already published
  in the journals that previously accepted the same work.
  (\cite{Peters_1982},~\cite{Ceci_2014})\\
\end{enumerate}

That is not to say that peer review is not without benefits, just that
it it is not stopping major errors from being published. ~An
alternative~is to post/publish/preprint work without review--hint:
Authorea--and then coordinate review post-publication through
traditional routes or through open post-publication peer review
platforms--such as \href{http://f1000research.com/}{F1000Research} and
\href{https://thewinnower.com/}{The Winnower}. ~Such a process affords
seamless communication amongst scientists without unnecessary delay,
eliminates editorial bias, and makes the entire process transparent. ~In
short, it makes the most sense.\\

Disagree? Leave an annotation anywhere on this document or write up a
counterpoint. ~We believe in open communication, making it more fluid
and collaborative and we hope you'll join us.\\

Write your next paper today on Authorea. Send it wherever you'd like.
\textbf{\#OpenScience}

\selectlanguage{english}
\FloatBarrier
\bibliographystyle{apacite}
\bibliography{bibliography/converted_to_latex.bib%
}

\end{CJK}\end{document}

