Aims and scope – what is F1000Research?
A preprint server is a repository for pre-publication draft versions of full papers that are often subsequently submitted to journals for peer review and publication. All articles in F1000Research are permanently published (with a DOI) and undergo formal peer review after publication. Since peer review starts the moment they are published, they are NOT preprints and cannot be submitted to other journals, regardless of the peer review outcome.
Under rare circumstances, F1000Research or the article’s authors may decide to discontinue peer review. In those cases, the article will be clearly labelled with an explanation that it is no longer under peer review. Because the article has not ‘passed peer review’ at this stage and is not listed on bibliographic databases such as PubMed, it may be considered equivalent to a preprint and the author may submit it to a journal for publication (authors must discuss this with the F1000Research team first).
Yes, all articles are published irrespective of the peer review status. “Peer review” and “publication” are two independent concepts. Most journals peer review and then publish; we publish and then peer review.
F1000Research provides a platform to publish all forms of scientific content related to the life sciences and medicine, from posters and lecture slides to software and research articles.
F1000Research publishes standard research articles, reviews, systematic reviews, opinion articles, and correspondence, as well as data notes, case reports, clinical practice papers, study protocols, method articles, research notes, observation articles, antibody validation articles, and software tool articles, across the life sciences. For a detailed description of each article type, please see our article guidelines . F1000Research welcomes positive, negative or null studies, replication studies and refutation studies equally.
Gateways provide personalized portals for institutions or organizations, with links to featured content and other resources.
All submissions to a gateway undergo the standard F1000Research editorial checks, see the FAQ Are submissions checked for quality before they are published. If the Gateway Advisors do not accept a submission that has been proposed for inclusion in their gateway, it will still be published in F1000Research if it passes the standard checks. If you are interested in starting a gateway, please contact the editorial team.
All articles published on F1000Research undergo peer review, with the exception of editorials which are typically commissioned, and Faculty Critiques. The peer review status is displayed in the upper right-hand corner of the articles.
Posters, slides and documents are not peer reviewed.
Authorship
We are using the CRediT taxonomy to capture author contributions as we believe that having more detail of who did what brings transparency, enables recognition for researchers, and provides greater accountability for all involved. Upon submission you will be asked to select from a 14-item list, all the contributions made by each author. For more information see: http://docs.casrai.org/CRediT.
If the author list of an article changes following its publication, a new version of the article can be published, with an explanation included in the ‘Amendments’ section at the top of the new version. As each version of an article has its own DOI, these can be individually cited and accessed. Therefore, the authorship list can change without affecting earlier versions of the article. The authorship contributions must also be revised accordingly.
Any changes in authorship must be confirmed by all authors in writing or over email, and the corresponding author is responsible for obtaining this confirmation from their co-authors. The F1000Research team may also contact any co-authors directly to obtain this confirmation.
Anyone who has contributed to the study but does not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgments section. It is the authors responsibility to obtain permission to include the name and affiliation, from all those mentioned in the Acknowledgments section.
How does the post-publication peer-review process of articles work?
The reason we conduct peer review post-publication is to remove the delay in others being able to benefit from accessing the work during the reviewing period. Closed (and sometimes biased) review processes can often take many months, sometimes even years, and may allow competing papers to be published first. The F1000Research model removes the possibility of a paper being deliberately blocked or held up by a single editor or referee. It also allows other scientists in the field to judge the work for themselves and start building on it, perhaps repeat the analysis for themselves, while expert referees assess it.
Articles are carefully checked by our in-house editorial team who ensure that each submitted article is (co-)authored by a qualified researcher or clinician and is appropriate in terms of content, quality, tone and format. We also check that article submissions are complete, not plagiarized, and we ensure that they meet ethical standards. Finally, we make sure that all supporting data are included with the article, that the methods section contains adequate protocol information to make the data useful, the writing is understandable, and that all requirements in our article guidelines are met.
Posters and slides do not undergo the same editorial checks and are posted immediately on submission; a brief check for topic, relevance and appropriateness is conducted in-house before they are given a permanent identifier (DOI). Documents undergo a basic screen before publication to ensure that they meet the criteria defined by the collection or gateway advisers who invited them.
As peer review takes place after publication, authors can submit a new version of their article that addresses any concerns or shortcomings that were identified during the peer-review process. Once a new version of an article is published, the referees of the previous version are asked to re-review the article and check whether their concerns have been addressed. All versions of an article are accessible, each with their own DOI (digital object identifier) and may be cited individually. The most recent article version is displayed as the default, and older article versions display a clear notification that newer versions are available.
Publication in F1000Research is much more dynamic than in traditional journals and our articles are still “developing” after the authors’ initial version is published. To distinguish more clearly between different types of article versions, we label them with the following badges:
[Revised] indicates a new version that usually incorporates changes in response to the referees' comments; an [Update] is a new version, often after the article is indexed and/or the peer review is considered complete, in which authors can add small developments relevant to the research discussed in that article.
The black [Updated] badge is no longer being used.
All versions of every article are retained and are accessible to readers, but if you visit an older version of an article, for example via a citation, a message will appear on-screen to alert you that there is a newer version available. If you have stored a version of the article's PDF in a reference manager or on your computer, you can ensure it is the most recent version by using the CrossMark button: when you click it you will be able to see immediately if newer versions of the article are available.
Posters and slides do not currently facilitate versioning.
No - articles awaiting peer review in F1000Research are officially published. You can cite F1000Research papers that are awaiting peer review (for example in manuscripts, CVs, or grant applications), because the citation includes details of the referee status, making it clear to everyone what stage of peer review the article has reached. Readers who later follow the citation link to view the paper will be able to see its current peer review status.
Not quite - most importantly, 'Not Approved' does not mean 'Rejected'. It simply means that the referee considers the current version of the article not to be of a high enough standard; he/she may have identified some flaws that seriously undermine the results and conclusions, unless they are fixed. The article remains published and a future revised version, if the referees judge it to be sufficiently improved, may then be 'Approved' or 'Approved with Reservations'.
The term 'Approved' means that the referee considers the article is technically sound, and has either no or only minor revisions.
'Approved with Reservations' means that the referee considers the article as not fully technically sound in the current version, but that the criticisms could be addressed by the author(s) with specific, sometimes major revisions. In a traditional journal, this status would usually lead to a request for major revisions or several minor revisions.
In every case, even when all referees approve the article, future versions are welcome.
You can revise your article at any time by publishing a new version, which will be displayed as the default. There are no extra APC charges for publishing new versions, and we would encourage you to update your article in response to referee reports. If we are expecting further referee reports to be submitted in the near future we may sometimes recommend that you wait until the reports are published. However, as our publishing process is entirely driven by the authors, it is your decision when you feel the time is right for a revision.
To submit a revised version of your article, you must be signed into your F1000 account that you used to submit the original version. Go to My Research, and download the latest version of your article to make your revisions – please remember to turn on ‘Track Changes’ whilst editing the document.
If you submitted your previous version(s) using Overleaf (formerly writeLaTeX), you can also revise via Overleaf: please visit My Research and select “Submit New Version using Overleaf”.
During submission, you will need to provide a brief description (maximum 300 words) of the main differences compared with the previous version – this will be published in an amendments box, alongside the new version.
No, you can’t. Once your article has been published on F1000Research, it has a formal citation with a DOI, which means that we must retain a permanent record of the full content and not change or remove it. If you would like to change your article, you can publish a new version; this way, someone looking for your original article will be automatically redirected to the new and updated version. Obviously, if you discover there is something seriously wrong with the whole paper, such as your samples getting mixed up or the key results were generated using a faulty reagent, you can ask us to mark the article as “retracted” and add a note explaining what happened. See details of our correction, replacement, and retraction policies.
On rare occasions, if you were not able to get referees for your article after a long period of time, peer review may be discontinued. You still cannot withdraw the article, but we can add an explanation that the article is no longer undergoing peer review, giving it a status equivalent to a preprint; many other journal editors accept submissions of papers previously posted on preprint servers and they may consider an article labelled like this in the same way (you must contact us at [email protected] if you wish to pursue this option with your F1000Research article).
Peer review at F1000Research is an author-driven process: authors are best placed to know who the experts are in their field, and they suggest the referees for their articles (following certain criteria). Under rare circumstances, authors may have difficulties securing 2 or more referees for their article; there can be a number of different reasons, including, for example that a limited pool of expert referees who could referee a niche topic has been exhausted.
Authors whose articles have 0 reports after 6 months, or only 1 report after 9 months, may choose to discontinue the peer review – in consultation with the F1000Research team. When we stop inviting referees, a notice is added to the Open Peer Review box to alert readers that we are not expecting any (further) referee reports, at least for the time being.
It is important to note that articles with 0 or only 1 referee report are not indexed in PubMed and other bibliographic databases; if peer review is stopped, the article’s status can be considered equivalent to a preprint. If authors notify the editorial team at [email protected], they are free to submit the paper elsewhere (it is important to note that it is entirely at the discretion of the journal editors where the article is then submitted how they consider the history of the article in F1000Research).
Open peer review – how does this work at F1000Research?
Yes - we name our referees and publish their reports alongside the article. Everyone visiting an article page or viewing its PDF can see all peer review reports, referee names, and comments.
There are many good reasons for being open about referee identities and comments.
First: We believe that secret refereeing, where authors don't know who has reviewed their work and referees don't have to publicly stand by their comments, opens up the possibility – perhaps the inevitability – of bias. Referees who review work that competes with their own may be tempted to unfairly criticize or delay its publication.
Second: Referee reports can be interesting and informative and we believe that everyone should have a chance to see them. At their best, they offer an objective critique that adds real value to the article in question for authors and readers alike. It is also interesting to see the range of reviews some papers receive – positive, negative and neutral – which often reflects the real breadth of expert opinion in controversial and cutting-edge areas of science.
Third: If referee reports are kept secret, referees get no credit for their contributions. They devote an immense amount of time and effort to reviewing other scientists' work and advising them on how to improve it, and it is fair that this should be recognized and acknowledged.
And finally, publicly accessible, signed reports tend to be better written and more constructive than anonymous, behind-the-scenes reviews – this has also been shown in randomized controlled trials. So the act of publishing the reports actually improves the quality of the advice the authors receive.
Constructive criticism is a core part of a referee's job, so referee reports often contain suggestions for improvements or insights into a paper's weaknesses. Our referees' reports are no different in this regard. What does make F1000Research different is that you can respond to your referees, to clarify and explain. And if a referee points out errors or omissions in your paper, or suggests ways to improve it, you can publish a revised version that addresses these issues. The great thing about F1000Research is that you can also see other people's reviews, and you'll notice that constructive criticism is common in many peer review reports.
The standard for F1000Research is to publish “sound science”. We carry out a set of in-house checks on all article submissions, and those that we and our advisors consider to be not sound science are not accepted for publication. As experts in the field, the referees have the deepest understanding of the material presented in a paper and they might still judge a published article to not be sound science, or to require significant changes before it can be considered sound. Consequently, on rare occasions, some published papers may be unanimously negatively reviewed.
However, we do encourage authors to submit a revised version of their article that addresses the referees' criticisms. If authors feel that a referee has been unfairly negative about their work, they can also request a new referee on either the original version or any revised version of their article. If the authors feel that multiple referees have been unfairly negative they should contact [email protected] to discuss their concerns, to ensure that the peer review process remains unbiased.
Referees are formally invited by F1000Research (as is the case with most other journals). They are selected based on suggestions from the authors, and their suitability as a referee for the article is checked before they are invited to contribute a report. Prospective referees who have collaborated or are currently collaborating with any of the authors are not eligible to review the article in question. Referees are also asked to declare any competing interests.
Posters and slides are not peer reviewed.
We would love to hear from you. Please contact our editorial office at [email protected] and let us know you are interested in reviewing for us. Please remember to attach a copy of your CV, and let us know if there is a particular article you would like to be considered for. Ultimately, it is up to the authors whether they would like you to referee their article.
Referees receive a 50% discount on our article processing charges for the 12 months following submission of their referee report.
F1000Research has no academic editors who make decisions to accept or reject articles or identify suitable referees. Instead, our peer-review process is led by the authors, who are responsible for suggesting referees for their article. Authors are best placed to identify those in their field who have the knowledge needed to review their article whilst meeting our refereeing criteria. We have created a set of tips for authors covering ways of finding suitable referees for their article, and in addition, we have created a tool to assist authors to select referees from our list of pre-approved experts. The tool is presented to authors following article submission and can be accessed via the [My Referees] button that is place next to submitted articles in the My Submissions area of My Research.
We ask authors to provide the names and details of at least 5 suitable referees before publication. Like traditional journals, we find that it is sometimes necessary to invite more than 5 referees (sometimes many more) until enough referees have agreed to peer review.
We will continue to contact authors for referee suggestions until at least 2 referee reports have been published.
The F1000Research team administers the peer-review process on behalf of the authors. We contact the referees, who have been suggested by the authors, and assist them during the peer review. We ask that authors do not contact the referees directly as this can influence the objectivity of their reviews.
F1000Research’s model is built on full transparency and is set up to avoid editorial bias. Unlike traditional journals, F1000Research has no academic editors or editorial board members who make decisions on whether or not to publish a paper, and all referee reports are made public. Consequently, there are no editors who can provide “internal” peer review instead of the formal peer review by external referees.
We encourage unsolicited open scientific discussion on all articles. Such contributions are published through our Comment system, and according to our policies anyone who wishes to comment on an article will be asked to declare any competing interests, along with their full name and affiliation.
While we welcome open scientific debate and discussion, we will not tolerate abusive behavior towards our authors and reviewers via our Comment system or via social media. In extreme cases we will consider contacting the affiliated institution to report the abusive behavior of individuals.
Peer review of F1000 Faculty Reviews
F1000 Faculty Reviews are published as an editorial service to our readers. They are commissioned from, and written by, members of the prestigious F1000 Faculty, usually at the suggestion of F1000 Faculty Section Heads, who ensure authoritative coverage of the latest advances in their areas. By seeking the input of expert peer reviewers before publication, the authors can revise and improve their review in collaboration with the referees and we can therefore ensure that the final published version is as comprehensive and accessible as possible and hence a useful resource to the research community.
F1000 Faculty Reviews have undergone (often extensive) revisions and editing before publication, and the referees’ comments have usually been incorporated in the final, published review. The referees’ comments on earlier versions of the review do not provide any additional useful information for readers and the referees’ reports are therefore not published. By publishing the names and affiliations of the referees, readers can see whose expertise contributed to the review.
Indexing of articles
Articles are immediately indexed in Google Scholar. Once an article passes peer review (i.e. it has received at least two Approved referee reviews, or one Approved plus two Approved with Reservations reviews), it will be indexed in PubMed, PubMed Central, Europe PMC, Scopus, Chemical Abstracts Service, British Library, CrossRef, DOAJ, and Embase.
All articles that pass peer review are archived in PubMed Central and the British Library; all our articles at any stage of peer review are also indexed by Portico. Data and code associated with articles are only stored in repositories that we have approved based on (among other things) their archiving policies.
From July 2012 until January 2013, F1000Research was still in beta, and we were testing our systems and assumptions. During this period, an article required any two of Approved or Approved with Reservations referee reviews to be indexed. When we formally launched at the start of 2013, we decided (together with our indexers) to raise the bar and require either two Approved or one Approved plus two Approved with Reservations reviews. So our rules changed, but we could not “un-index” the papers that had already met our previous indexing requirements. We have encouraged the authors of these beta-period papers to revise their work to meet the new standards.
Articles that pass peer review are indexed in various bibliographic databases (see “Where will my article be indexed?” above). Until September 2015, the referee report status (appended to the article title) automatically changed to the word “indexed” once an article attained the peer review requirements set by those databases (namely, two “approved” statuses, or one “approved” and two “approved with reservations”). Since September 2015, the term “indexed” has not been used and the actual referee approval statuses attained are listed.
F1000Research is a publishing platform and not a journal – we have no academic editors making acceptance/rejection decisions following peer review. We also have no article type restrictions and strongly encourage the publication of small studies, negative/null findings, data and software articles, case reports etc, as well as more typical research articles. Hence the journal Impact Factor is a particularly unsuitable measure for our way of publishing, not to mention a highly misleading metric for research assessment (see this editorial from our founder, Vitek Tracz, on why we think it is so problematic). We believe that only article-level metrics have relevance. We therefore have no plans to make efforts to obtain or use an Impact Factor. However, we do provide a range of article-level metrics, such as the recommendation of important articles by members of the F1000 Faculty, and the number of views or PDF downloads, to help you assess the impact of individual papers.
Article processing charges
F1000Research articles are published online only and there are no limits to the number of figures (including color figures) and tables that can be included. The article processing charge is purely based on the number of words in the main body of the article (i.e. excluding title, abstract, figure and data legends, and references). A full list of our fees is available here.
No, you will only be charged for the first version. We want to encourage our authors to revise their papers in response to the referees' suggestions so we publish subsequent versions free of charge.
Yes. We fully support the HINARI/AGORA Access to Research in Health Programme; for articles presenting original research a full waiver is given to authors from HINARI group A countries, and a 50% discount to authors from group B. Additionally, we will also consider individual full or partial waiver requests on a case-by-case basis in situations where there is a lack of funds.
No; if your article has received negative feedback from the referees, it is still published and we encourage you to submit a new version that addresses the referees' concerns. You may also suggest new referees if you would like an additional opinion on your article.
Similarly, if several, or sometimes many, referees have declined to referee your article, it remains published and we urge you to suggest more referees following our tips for finding referees. If you have received feedback from one referee, or have additional data or results, publishing a new version of your article may also improve your chances of securing referees.
Although we understand that it is disappointing to receive no referee comments or negative feedback on an article, we cannot offer you a refund as we have committed time and resources to publishing your paper, and supporting you during the review process.
Details of what the APC covers can be found here.
Source data in articles
We ask for your data so that other researchers can analyze and use it, and so they can try to reproduce your results. If the original datasets are not available for review, other scientists have to assume that the data were collected and the analyses done correctly, and that the stated results and conclusions therefore are correct.
Increasingly, major funders and others are making it clear that the underlying data behind research studies should be made available: See the UK Royal Society Report on Science as an Open Enterprise, the US Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) on Expanding Public Access to the Results of Publicly Funded Research, and the European Commission statement on Scientific Data: open access to research results will boost Europe's innovation capacity.
If there is a subject-specific repository for the type of data you are submitting, such as PDB for protein structures, we ask that you deposit the data there. For more information about providing, preparing and hosting of data, please see our data preparation guidelines. For anything else, please contact us to discuss data submission.
Our standard procedure is that we ask you to send us all your data so that we can review it, integrate it with your article, and make it easily sharable. If there is a specific repository that you would like to use or are already using (such as an institutional data repository) then please let us know and we will check to see if it complies with our requirements for stability and permanence.
We recommend the use of the CC0 (Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication) license for any datasets submitted to F1000Research.
If the data genuinely cannot be anonymized adequately to address all security or patient confidentiality issues, then it can be stored in an access-controlled database. However, we require that all researchers who meet the necessary criteria be given access to review the data on request.
There is no easy answer to this question; it all depends on the types of experiments involved. The overarching rule is that there should be enough data provided that another researcher could reanalyse and/or try to reproduce it. If you are unsure, please contact the editorial team and we will provide some guidance.
There are no size limits for datasets submitted with an article. Obviously, if your dataset is very large (terabytes, for example), then we will need to discuss with you where it should be stored, but we will be happy to work with you to find the best solution. In some cases, datasets over 10MB may incur an additional charge - check our APCs. Please contact the editorial team if you have any questions.
Publishing posters and slides in F1000Research
A comprehensive database of current self-archiving policies for journals and publishers can be found at SHERPA-RoMEO, which summarizes where research that hasn't been peer reviewed can be deposited, and any conditions that are attached to that deposit. If you are unsure about the journal you plan to subsequently submit your work to then we strongly recommend that you contact the journal(s) asking for their views prior to submission of your poster or slide deck.
You can deposit posters and slides that relate to papers submitted to, or already published in, a journal, but you cannot submit an article that has already been published.
Please bear in mind, however, that you may have assigned the copyright for figures and tables that were also used in the paper to the publishers. If so, you should ensure that you have permission from the journal to reuse those figures/tables before you submit the poster or slide to F1000Research.
Yes, you can share your poster or slides on multiple sites. You will end up with multiple DOIs for your content if you use both Figshare and F1000Research, but the DOI generated by F1000Research will only point to your poster or slides on our site.
Many societies hold the copyright of the conference abstracts, so they can be published in their journals. We therefore ask that you do not use the abstract you submitted to avoid any possible copyright infringement, but instead write a short separate summary that can be published alongside your poster or slides on F1000Research.
All posters and slides on F1000Research are clearly labelled that they are not peer reviewed.
In July 2015, F1000Posters, which used to be a separate repository for posters and slides, was incorporated into F1000Research. Posters and slides published before this date are now available via the F1000Research site; these files were protected and watermarked, and they did not receive a DOI. Subsequent to this date, all new submissions are initially published without a DOI, and only receive one once they have passed a quick internal editorial check.
Posters and slides on F1000Research will receive a unique permanent identifier (DOI) and are date-stamped, so by submitting the work, you will be able to show priority. If you are ready to publish it formally then you can of course convert it into a short article and have it published immediately and then transparently peer reviewed on F1000Research.
Most posters and slides are published under a CC BY license, but other CC licenses may apply, as indicated on each research output’s published page under the image.
How to cite articles, other research outputs, datasets and referee reports
We have adapted the traditional system of article citation to include two additional elements - the article version number and the number of referee reports that have received 'Approved', 'Approved with Reservations' or 'Not Approved' statuses. This information is placed in square brackets immediately after the article title to avoid it being accidentally removed on copying. All articles are assigned a DOI (digital object identifier). An article should be cited like this:
Authors. Article title [version number; details of peer review status]. F1000Research YEAR, volume:publication number (doi:).
The full citation for an article can be obtained by clicking the Cite button on the article page.
Each poster and slide published from July 2015 has its own DOI (digital object identifier) and can be cited using this DOI. The full citation can be obtained by clicking the Cite button on the poster, slide or document page. They should be cited like this:
Authors. Poster title. F1000Research YEAR, volume:publication number (poster) (doi:)
Authors. Slides title. F1000Research YEAR, volume:publication number (slides) (doi:)
Authors. Document title. F1000Research YEAR, volume:publication number (document) (doi:)
All referee reports associated with F1000Research articles are assigned a DOI (digital object identifier) on publication. This means that they can be cited independently from the article. The full citation for a referee report can be obtained by clicking the Cite button next to the referee report. The correct format for a referee report citation is:
Referee name(s). Referee Report For: Article title [version number; details of peer review status]. F1000Research YEAR, volume:publication number (doi:)
All datasets associated with F1000Research articles are assigned a DOI (digital object identifier) on publication. This means that they can be cited independently from the article. The full citation for a dataset can be obtained by clicking the Cite button next to the dataset within the article. The correct format for a dataset citation is:
Authors. Dataset 1 in: Article title. F1000Research YEAR, volume:publication number (doi:)
Licenses and copyright
F1000Research articles are usually published under a CC-BY license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and leaves the copyright of the article with the current copyright holder (usually the author or their institution). Additional waivers are used for some governmental employees, as appropriate. As the specific version of the CC-BY license applied may change due to periodic updates, the copyright information is shown below the abstract.
Most posters, slides and documents are also published under a CC BY license, but other CC licenses may apply, as indicated on each research output’s published page under the image.
Expanding your
ORCID profile
F1000Research supports the ORCID initiative, which provides every researcher with a unique digital identifier. We are keen to see it adopted on a wider scale and we encourage the use of ORCID IDs amongst our authors. Submitting authors are required to connect their ORCID iD at the point of submission and when the work is published, all co-authors are sent a link by email that allows them to connect their iD and add the article to their ORCID profile. Additionally, any registered user can connect their iD at any time, via the My pages.
We have been working with ORCID and CASRAI so that peer review reports can be integrated into ORCID profiles, enabling referees to receive full credit for the input they’ve provided. When your peer review report is published, you will be sent a link via email that will enable you to easily add this report to your ORCID profile.
Yes, once you have connected your iD to F1000Research, all work that is published with you named as an author, whether an article or a referee report, will automatically be added to your ORCID account.
