{"id":3717,"date":"2020-12-21T15:31:12","date_gmt":"2020-12-21T15:31:12","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/elife-makes-big-move-to-preprint-first-model-for-research-publishing\/"},"modified":"2025-01-15T06:26:21","modified_gmt":"2025-01-15T06:26:21","slug":"elife-makes-big-move-to-preprint-first-model-for-research-publishing","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/elife-makes-big-move-to-preprint-first-model-for-research-publishing","title":{"rendered":"eLife makes big move to ‘preprint-first’ model for research publishing"},"content":{"rendered":"

In a bold move earlier this month, the open-access journal eLife<\/i> revealed that it will soon transition to a new \u2018publish, then review\u2019 policy. Starting from July next year, the biomedical journal will only review and accept preprints, and will also move to make peer review reports, for both accepted and rejected manuscripts, available to the public.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

This change is in line with the growing popularity of the open-access publishing model<\/a><\/span><\/span>, which has seen a further boost amid the ongoing global pandemic. A Nature analysis<\/a><\/span><\/span> showed that over 30,000 or 17%-30% of the total COVID-19 research papers published in 2020 were preprints. While this surge of COVID-related papers on bioRxiv and medRxiv signals a shift toward preprints <\/span>to accelerate science and make the latest COVID-related research freely available online, it also puts a spotlight on the lack of a system that can review and offer feedback on author-published manuscripts. Michel Eisen, the editor-in-chief of eLife<\/i>, says the journal\u2019s decision to move toward a \u2018publish, then review\u2019 model is the next logical step in the evolution of science publishing. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

What does this change mean for researchers looking to publish in eLife<\/i>? <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Under the new policy, eLife<\/i> will require submissions to first be posted on preprint servers like bioRxiv, medRxiv, or arXiv. If a manuscript is not already on a preprint server, and is being considered for peer review by the journal, eLife<\/i> will post it as a preprint on behalf of the author(s). The policy won\u2019t be implemented immediately, and authors will have six months to opt out. \u00a0Eisen said he would want to understand the reasons for their hesitation, so that eLife<\/i> can understand and work to alleviate these. The journal is pulling out all the stops to ensure this system succeeds; once it addresses any lingering concerns, eLife<\/i> expect opposition from authors to be rare.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

Apart from the focus on preprints, eLife<\/i> is also making all its peer review reports publicly available alongside papers on preprint servers. Research authors, whose manuscripts have been rejected, can ask that reviews not be made public until their articles are accepted by another journal, if they feel it may prejudice their chance at acceptance. In an article on eLife<\/i><\/a>, Eisen writes, \u201cOur plan is to work closely with our editors, reviewers, authors and readers to optimize the process by which public reviews are created and their utility to the diverse audiences we hope to reach.\u201d This includes refocusing editorial processes on \u2018refereed preprints\u2019 and updating reviewer guidelines to produce constructive public reviews, which help authors improve their paper. eLife<\/i> is also working on Sciety<\/a><\/span><\/span>, a smart platform to share public peer reviews. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\u00a0<\/p>\n

The driving force behind restructuring the publishing model<\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

While the rise in preprints was a reason for revamping the publishing policy, the main impetus came the realization that most eLife<\/i> authors posted preprints of their manuscripts before submission. In fact, an internal analysis revealed that nearly 70% of papers reviewed by eLife<\/i> between May and July 2020 were already available on bioRxiv, medRxiv or arXiv servers<\/span><\/span>. The journal has also seen good results since May when it launched Preprint Review<\/a>, an opt-in service that helped review over 250 preprints on bioRxiv.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

eLife<\/i> acknowledges this as a major milestone and a welcome opportunity to flip the traditional \u2018review, then publish\u2019 model to the \u2018publish, then review\u2019 model for the internet age. The idea is to empower researchers to take advantage of online platforms to make their results instantly and freely available, which is in keeping with eLife\u2019s<\/i> mission of transforming research communication. The journal, which was launched and is partly subsidized by private research funders<\/a><\/span><\/span>, does not plan to change its business model immediately, and will continue to charge US$2,500 to publish a paper.\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

While an important move toward changing the scholarly publishing landscape, eLife\u2019s<\/i> policy ensures that academics don\u2019t need to abandon the conventional journal system. In a Nature report<\/a><\/span><\/span>, Director of the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the Harvard Open Access Project, Peter Suber says, this restructure \u201camplifies the value of preprints,\u201d adding that \u201ceLife<\/i> is showing that the benefits of a preprint can be conjoined with the benefits of peer review.\u201d Then again, Eisen says he sees the new publishing model as an evolving one. \u201cI think it is essential, in order to bring as large a fraction of the community along with us as possible, that we not force people out of [the existing] model while they come into the new one,\u201d he says in the Nature article<\/a>. <\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Are you a biomedical researcher? What do you think about this move toward open access publishing? Do you think it will transform the way research is published? Let us know by leaving a comment below.<\/i><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Related reading:<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/u><\/b><\/em><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n