- \n
- A year after the launch of their \u2018reviewed preprint\u2019 model, the journal eLife<\/em> has released their key findings.<\/li>\n
- eLife <\/em>report over 6,200 submissions, 2.5\u00d7 faster time to publication, and no significant change in quality.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/07\/AdobeStock_844028594.jpeg?resize=1024%2C408&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nIn January 2023, eLife<\/em><\/a> made the radical decision to end the process of accepting or rejecting papers after peer review, in favour of publishing \u2018reviewed preprints<\/a>\u2019. A year on, they have released their key findings<\/a>.<\/p>\n
What is the \u2018reviewed preprint\u2019 model?<\/strong><\/p>\n
In this model<\/a>, all articles selected for peer review are published on the eLife<\/em> website as a reviewed preprint alongside an eLife assessment<\/a>, public reviews, and a response from the authors (if provided).<\/p>\n
What are the key results?<\/strong><\/p>\n
In the first year, eLife <\/em>report<\/a>:<\/p>\n
- \n
- over 6,200 submissions received and more than 1,300 reviewed preprints published<\/li>\n
- over 2.5\u00d7 faster time from submission to publication than the legacy model<\/li>\n
- no significant change in the quality of submissions (based on ratings for significance and strength of evidence)<\/li>\n
- quality of eLife<\/em> assessments and public reviews rated highly by authors.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
When the new model was launched, eLife <\/em>reported that views across academic publishing were mixed, with concerns that:<\/p>\n
- \n
- authors would not submit their work<\/li>\n
- editors and reviewers would not want to be involved<\/li>\n
- articles would be of low quality or only from researchers with the most confidence in their work.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
However, a year on, eLife<\/em> consider the reality to be much more encouraging, highlighting how:<\/p>\n
- \n
- editors and reviewers have been able to focus on summarising the strengths and weaknesses of an article, with their views open for debate<\/li>\n
- authors and reviewers have been able to provide exchange without fear of articles being rejected<\/li>\n
- the majority of authors have revised their articles in response to reviewer comments, resulting in what eLife<\/em> believe to be \u2018better science all around\u2019.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n
The majority of authors have revised their articles in response to reviewer comments, resulting in what eLife<\/em> believe to be \u2018better science all around\u2019.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
What\u2019s next?<\/strong><\/p>\n
Going forward, eLife<\/em> commit to continued evolution and adaptation. One proposal is to extend this approach to articles that may not typically be published by broad-interest journals, such as important negative or preliminary findings.<\/p>\n
eLife<\/em> welcome ideas to help them achieve these aims. They also encourage other publishers to adopt some aspects of their approach by making their software infrastructure freely available<\/a>.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013<\/p>\n
- eLife <\/em>report over 6,200 submissions, 2.5\u00d7 faster time to publication, and no significant change in quality.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/03\/Lindsay-Fawcett_new-byline.png?resize=1024%2C125&ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/p>\n