As of now, the scope of the epijournal is to be decided and all topics related to Mechanics are eligible.

Hi

I fully support this initiative. I think there shall be an alternative to those companies who charge unreasonable amounts to put on line our papers which are anyway written, peer-reviewed and finalized without significant added value from the publisher.

If uncertainty quantification methods and probabilistic mechanics belongs to the scope, I'd be happy to be on board.

Bruno Sudret, ETH Zurich

An idea I shared with Mathias some days ago (but not publicly) is to build something that could be equivalent to "Annual review of Fluid mechanics", i.e. a journal appearing rarely but with only top articles giving a wide view with selected references on a specific subject. Maybe that one number per year of the epi-journal could be reserved to this "Annual review", where the papers will be asked by the board to selected reasearchers, asking to give a deep and clear overview on a subject for which they are recognized as experts, while the 11 remaining issues (in the assumtpoion of a monthly publication of course) could be regular issues with regular papers on wide subjects related to mechanics.
The idea behind is : nowadays too many papers appears everywhere and the general quality is decreasing. By organizing the rarity we could also improve the quality. And if we want the epi-journal to lay on gound foundations and start being recognized quickly, the quality is a key factor that has to be discussed and organized beforehand.

One point should clarified: epijournals are fed in articles in real-time (au fil de l'eau...) when those articles are made available on Open Archives by their authors. Being purely electronic, these epijournals do not require "Volumes", "Issues", "Numbers" and "Monthly publication"... As such, considering annual volumes seems to go a bit against the concept of epijournals. Still, quality by rarity can be organized via a very thorough and strong evaluation procedure. In order to keep this idea of "annual review", we could maybe think about a selection (made by the editorial team) of the "best" papers submitted the last 12 months? Thoughts?

I find this proposition very interesting. The scope of this annual (or bis-annual?) review could vary each time, and allow to cover a wide range of themes in the field of mechanics.

also acoustics, biomechanics and civil engineering ? (cover scope of the "section 60" from the branch CNU)