blog

When we launched F1000Research as an author-led publishing platform, the goal was to transfer the decision on what gets published from editors over to researchers. This meant handing over much of the control to authors, and this model of publishing is now being adopted by several other open research publishing platforms.

Being in control comes with responsibility, and some authors may never have been in this position before and can be unclear about what having that control actually means. In this post, I will explore this concept and some of the main aspects of the peer review process that F1000Research authors experience.

Speedy publication – the role of the author

One of the main reasons authors submit to us is speed – we can typically publish a typeset article, with a unique digital object identifier (DOI) within 7 days of submission. Publication then triggers the invited open peer review process. However, this is on the condition that mandatory information has been included, such as a statement on ethical approval, consent to publish, details on data availability, etc.

Missing information leads to delays as the F1000Research team will not publish the article until the required information has been included.  Authors who include all the mandatory information from the start will generally experience a fast publication process.

Choosing reviewers and the reviewer selector tool

As we’ve explained before, we believe that authors should be at the heart of the peer review process rather than having their paper being held hostage to it, and so when authors submit an article, they are asked to suggest the names of at least five potential reviewers within a strict minimum set of criteria.

We provide all authors with a referee finder tool, which scans the article and, based on the content, provides a list of potential reviewers (including affiliations and matching publications) that the authors can consider.

Suggestion doesn’t guarantee invitation

To ensure that the review process is as fair as possible, we check all referee suggestions for subject expertise and any obvious conflicts of interest. If suitable, then after verifying the email addresses, approved reviewers are invited by the F1000Research team to review the article.

Those at the same institution as the authors, or close collaborators are usually not approved by the F1000Research team. However, we encourage feedback from authors to explain their suggestions if they think their selections have been unfairly excluded. All reviewers are also asked to declare any competing interests so that readers are also aware of any potential bias.

Our aim is to try to ensure that any reviewers invited have no discernible competing interests, and to encourage transparency at all stages.

Reflect and revise – who decides?

With our open research platform, there’s no editor to convince. The discussion happens entirely between the author and the reviewer, who are after all fellow researchers in the same field. There have been cases where after receiving just one review, authors have decided to halt the peer review process so they can revise.  Once ready, they have submitted a new version, which is assigned a new DOI   , and the peer review process starts again.

Sometimes, authors opt to start a discussion with the reviewer directly from their article to explain their standpoint, especially if there is a difference of opinion. This allows direct discussion between the author and reviewer, before the author makes a decision to revise or not.

Only articles which pass peer review are indexed in PubMed, Scopus and other bibliographic databases. While we encourage authors to revise where possible in order to be successfully indexed, the decision to do so is ultimately up to the author.

All versions of an article are linked and are independently citable due to the unique DOIs. When an article is indexed, all versions and reviewer reports are also deposited in PubMed Central.

Keeping readers in mind – the function of the Amendment box

Finally, we want readers of the article to have clear and succinct guidance on what changes have been made. For this reason, authors also complete the Amendment box, along with any revisions, which serves to provide a brief summary for readers. The more detailed responses to the reviewer are made directly to them, by responding on the ‘Respond or comment’ tab at the end of their report.

We’re always looking to provide clear guidance on our aims and processes, so if there’s anything else you want to know about or would like to suggest, please do get in touch. We’re always happy to answer your questions!

The F1000Research publishing platform aims to be a community-driven open research platform, so your feedback is important to us.