blog

The F1000 Faculty Reviews channel was officially launched last month, the articles being previously published on the F1000Prime Reports journal. One of the first articles to be published on the channel was by James Russell, a Professor of Medicine at the University of British Columbia and an F1000 Section Head in Critical Care & Emergency Medicine. We asked him a few questions on his article, “Sepsis breakthroughs in 2014” and his experience of publishing in F1000Research.

 

Your article was one of the first to be published for the F1000 Faculty Reviews channel — can you briefly summarize what your article is about?

Our review focuses on key discoveries arising mainly from large well-conducted randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that were reported in 2014 and early 2015 regarding treatment of sepsis and septic shock. Although most of the RCTs were “negative”, the field learned a lot and there are implications for all clinicians who care for such patients as a result of these trials. For example, a VERY widely used protocol – early goal-directed therapy (EGDT) – was not validated in 3 international RCTs. We review the results, try to add some interpretation of the results, and then the implications for clinicians in the emergency rooms (ERs) and intensive care units (ICUs) who care for these patients. Another timely example – transfusion of red blood cells in septic shock is a controversial area because one protocol (EGDT) recommended and used a higher transfusion threshold than the Transfusion Requirements in Critical Care (TRICC) trial in the critically ill. A recent trial showed that the TRICC transfusion threshold is safe and appropriate in patients who have septic shock.

 

Why did you decide to write for Faculty Reviews?

We thought that the open access, the growing popularity and the very helpful article critiques are building the credibility of this model and in particular F1000. We wanted to add to that momentum and popularity.

 

What makes the topic and your review timely?

Our topic is huge. There is a growing international burden of sepsis (and we review that briefly), many large RCTs that ran for several years reported out in 2014, and all of the RCTs were designed to answer very practical clinical questions. Hence – the timeliness of our review.

 

F1000Research is an open-access publishing platform, so your article is highly accessible to readers worldwide. What difference does open access make to your field and science in general?

Open access opens the door of science, particularly to scientists and especially clinicians who may not have easy access to peer-review literature because of pricing and lack of access through university or hospital libraries. So these are often resource-limited settings that need and appreciate hearing the latest to guide their thinking and actions.

 

How has knowing who the referees were helped you address their comments during the revisions?

Knowing the referees was new for us and helpful because we could get a better sense of the “tone” of the critiques and suggestions. It felt more like a collegial conversation with important content nonetheless.

 

How has your overall experience been as an author for F1000 Faculty Reviews?

Excellent – hard work, lots of back and forth but we’re happy and proud of the final product and the F1000 site hosting our review.

 

Would you submit another review for F1000 Faculty Reviews if you were asked to in the future?

Yes, I would and would encourage other opinion leaders to do the same. I think the process nicely complements submission to “conventional” journals. In other words, it’s not really either/or but more like – consider this alternative, novel and “modern” approach and process.