Science editors have written ethical guidelines which help editors pin responsibility for bad science on authors. Unfortunately these guidelines are not useful to authors. The scientific enterprise depends crucially on the authors, the actual scientists, and it is time to set up ethical guidelines that take into account author needs. These include: 1. We want transparent publication processes documented with each publication. Editors do now know enough to accept or reject papers but base their decisions on a referee vote. We want this voting record to appear with the publication. We also want to know when editors do not use this vote or when they override the vote, this should also appear with the publication. We also want to know the statistics for all editors: how many manuscripts are rejected even before they are sent to referees. 2. We want timely publication processes. The average time for publication of new findings is likely more than a year and this is completely unacceptable. Editors have succeeded in evading responsibility for slow processes because the processes can be secret. We want a standard set of statistics for all journals that explain how long it takes to accept, reject and publish a paper. Once journals can be compared, it is likely that editors will make the process more timely. In addition there should be a public record of how long named referees take to make a decision. That will improve the timing of the refereeing process and will warn authors to avoid slow referees. 3. We want to get rid of anonymous peer review. It is a system that adds much time, frustration and paranoia to the scientific process but little in terms of scientific quality. Since we understand that editors are worried about big changes, we first want two small change: authors that approved a publication should be listed with it. This will still leave referees open to reject papers and not face any consequences. This will also improve the referee process since the positive referees will take public responsibility for believing the content of the paper.