Editorial management

I would be in favor of:
- no editor in chief
- an international scientific board of a well-recognized researchers able to promote the journal.
- an editorial board of associate editors, elected for 4 years, renewable once. The electors might be the scientific committee plus the actual members of the editorial board. The members of the editorial board must have between 30 and 50 years at the date of the election
- several managing editors for administrative and technical aspect (links with technical support, ...)

+1

As suggested by email, maybe taking inspiration from, and work with CLEO (http://cleo.openedition.org). I received very good feedbacks from it (easy to handle, fair, efficient...)

@maurinemontagnat : Thanks for the pointer.

It seems that there are competitors in France even for the open edition :). As usual.

I know only episciences.org for which I can have some support from INRIA and CNRS, but all the options has to be discussed. I have no religion on the aspect.

Managing a journal is a demanding and tough job. We shall think about rewarding in a strong way people that will get involved in the process, especially young one, otherwise nobody will get involved in a serious manner. Right now for a young researcher from a carreer viewpoint it is much better to write papers than to participate to collective tasks such as creating a new journal, however exciting this may be. If there is no strong incentives then I am very doubtfull if this will work

I personally don't like the idea of being "paid" for such a task... since it does not necessarily induce a better quality job. I think that people should work on this task because they really feel the importance of having an alternative way to publish and share scientific work... I might be too "optimistic" (but, at this stage of the process, we might still be allow to remain optimistic?).

We could think about having a team of 3 to 4 chief editors for each main scope (acoustic, robotic, theoretical mechanics...), and each of this team would have a few more associate editors to take in charge the review process of the papers related to their field (it means that they could easily find potential reviewers).
"Frontiers" works that way, and people don't complain about having too much job. One or 2 papers to proceed with for each associate editor.

I support the idea of limiting the time for someone serving in the editorial board of the/any journal.