Referee guidelines - F1000Research

For Referees

Referee Guidelines

F1000Research’s peer review model

F1000Research operates formally invited peer review after publication, which is fully open and transparent, and led by the article authors. Referees are usually suggested by the authors following certain referee criteria. Peer review reports are published – alongside the referees’ full names and affiliations – as soon as they’re submitted, and remain attached to the article if it is indexed with sites such as PubMed and Scopus. Peer review directly determines whether an article will be indexed, via the referee approval status that referees select when reviewing the article.

If you’ve been invited to review an article and would like more information on our model, please visit our How it Works page. Alternatively, please use the menu to the left for more detailed information on the peer review process.

Article Submission

Publication &
Data Deposition

Open Peer Review
& User Commenting

Article Revision

Scope and article eligibility

F1000Research publishes articles within the life sciences and medicine without editorial bias, including papers reporting single findings, replications studies, and null results or negative findings. Referees are asked to assess the scientific validity of the article, rather than the novelty or interest levels. All articles and referee reports are Open Access and published under a CC-BY licence. F1000Research also has an Open Data policy: articles discussing original results must make available the underlying source data alongside, and the details of any software used to process them.

Our formal invited open peer-review process occurs after the article is published. Before publication, articles undergo checks by the in-house editorial team to ensure they meet our basic criteria. Our pre-publication checks include:

Authors are eligible to publish - authors must be active life scientists or clinicians and the research must have been carried out at a recognised institution.
Article types – articles are checked whether they meet the criteria and format of specific article types.
Readability – as we do not copy edit articles, the standard of language and readability must be sufficient for readers to be able to follow the article.
Plagiarism – articles are checked for plagiarism before publication.
Methods section – we check that details of methods and resources are provided, so the work can be assessed (we will ask you as an expert referee to comment whether more information would be required for others to reproduce the work).
Policies – we check that articles publishing research involving humans or animals adhere to our ethical policies.
Data – we check that the source data underlying the results are made openly available (we will ask you as an expert referee to comment whether the source data are appropriate for others to reproduce the work).

Referee eligibility

Reviewers are chosen based on suggestions from the article authors, with the editorial team ensuring that they meet our referee criteria. We encourage authors to suggest people who they know to be experts in their field of research, and we also offer authors a referee finder tool, which uses an algorithm to help identify suitable referees. If a paper includes a lot of (medical) statistical analysis or new statistical methods, reviewers are also selected based on their knowledge of these fields.

We are very appreciative of the work our referees do for us, and believe it is important for them to be rewarded for the time and effort they spend assessing papers, as peer review is an invaluable contribution to the scientific community. Read more here.

Guidelines for reviewing

When you agree to review an article published by F1000Research you will receive an email with a link to the article, a proposed deadline, and information on how to submit your report. The request will also appear in your My pages if you already have an account with us.

If you have a potential competing interest please contact us before you begin to write the review, so that we can confirm you are eligible. When you submit your report we also ask that you declare any competing interests here also, so that they can be displayed on the referee report when published.

Approval status

We ask referees to choose an approval status, which both helps directly determine whether an article is indexed with sites such as PubMed and Scopus, and provides readers with an at-a-glance view of your thoughts on the article. Please bear in mind that the rating should be based on whether the paper is scientifically valid, not on the novelty or importance of an article.

The approval statuses to choose from are:

Approved: No or only minor changes are required. For original research, this means that the experimental design, including controls and methods, is adequate; results are presented accurately and the conclusions are justified and supported by the data.
Approved with Reservations: The article is not fully technically sound in its current version, but your criticisms could be addressed with specific, sometimes major, revisions.
Not Approved: The article is of very poor quality and there are fundamental flaws in the article that seriously undermine the findings and conclusions.

Writing the review

We also ask referees for a review which reflects their assessment of the article, including any constructive criticisms they may have and suggestions for improvement. The referee report form also includes questions to help referees focus on sections of the paper. These questions are compulsory and differ depending on the article type being reviewed. This report, the referee approval status and the referee’s full name and affiliation will be published alongside the article. When a referee submits their report we ask that they declare whether they have any competing interests, which will be displayed on the referee report when published.

Referees are also asked to explain their expertise, in particular in areas where the referee’s relevant experience may not be immediately obvious from a publication record and public profile.

We would encourage referees to adhere to the principles of the Open Science Peer Review Oath; the Committee for Publication Ethics (COPE) has also developed guidelines for peer reviewers, which outlines basic principles for peer reviewers.

For specific tips on how to write a referee report for F1000Research, or for examples of referee reports we’ve published, please visit Examples and tips for writing referee reports.

Guidelines for reviewing specific article types

F1000Research asks referees a set of questions tailored to each article type, as different article types may require a different focus. Click on the article types below to see the questions.

Research Article

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Research Note

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Systematic Review

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Software Tool Article

Is the rationale for developing the new software tool clearly explained?

Is the description of the software tool technically sound?

Are sufficient details of the code, methods and analysis (if applicable) provided to allow replication of the software development and its use by others?

Is sufficient information provided to allow interpretation of the expected output datasets and any results generated using the tool?

Are the conclusions about the tool and its performance adequately supported by the findings presented in the article?

Method Article

Is the rationale for developing the new method (or application) clearly explained?

Is the description of the method technically sound?

Are sufficient details provided to allow replication of the method development and its use by others?

If any results are presented, are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Are the conclusions about the method and its performance adequately supported by the findings presented in the article?

Data Note

Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described?

Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others?

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Study Protocol

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Is the study design appropriate for the research question?

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Case Report

Is the background of the case’s history and progression described in sufficient detail?

Are enough details provided of any physical examination and diagnostic tests, treatment given and outcomes?

Is sufficient discussion included of the importance of the findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease processes, diagnosis or treatment?

Is the case presented with sufficient detail to be useful for other practitioners?

Clinical Practice Article

Is the background of the cases’ history and progression described in sufficient detail?

Are enough details provided of any physical examination and diagnostic tests, treatment given and outcomes?

Is sufficient discussion included of the importance of the findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease processes, diagnosis or treatment?

Is the conclusion balanced and justified on the basis of the findings?

Correspondence

Is the rationale for commenting on the previous publication clearly described?

Are any opinions stated well-argued, clear and cogent?

Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature or by new data and results?

Is the conclusion balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?

Review

Is the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature?

Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?

Is the review written in accessible language?

Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature?

Opinion Article

Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature?

Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?

Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature?

Are the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?

Antibody Validation Article

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Are sufficient details of materials, methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Registered Report

Stage 1

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?

Is the study design appropriate for the research question (including statistical power analysis, where appropriate)?

Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?

Have the authors pre-specified sufficient outcome-neutral tests for ensuring that the results obtained can test the stated hypotheses, including positive controls and quality checks?

Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Stage 2

Are the data able to test the authors’ proposed hypotheses by satisfying the approved outcome-neutral conditions (such as quality checks, positive controls)?

Are the introduction, rationale and stated hypotheses the same as the approved Stage 1 submission? (required)

Did the authors adhere precisely to the registered experimental procedures? If not, has an explanation been provided regarding any change?

Are any unregistered post hoc analyses added by the authors justified, methodologically sound and informative?

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?

Is the study design appropriate and is the work technically sound?

Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?

If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?

Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?

Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

How to submit your referee report

There are two ways for you to submit your report:

Submit report online

To submit your report online, you can either use the link in the email you will have received upon agreeing, or visit your My Refereeing page (here you can find a record of the articles you have been invited to referee, any draft referee reports you may have, and all the referee reports you have published with us). To submit a review, simply go to the ‘Invited Reports’ tab and click “yes, I agree to be a referee for this article” and then “Write your report”. Fill in your referee report and click “submit”.

Submit report offline

Alternatively, you can complete a Word referee report form and email it to us. If you would prefer to write your report using this form, please contact the editorial team who will provide you with a copy.

The referee form includes a section for you to declare any competing interests, and for you to name anyone who co-refereed the article with you. Co-referees’ names and affiliations are also published, so that they receive full credit.

Unless we have any questions about your report, it will be published alongside the article soon after you have submitted it to us. We will let you know how you can access it once it has been published.

The peer-review process

Peer review progression

The peer review status of the article changes as referee reports are published. The progress of peer review is clearly marked on each article and is part of the citation.

Immediately on publication, and while peer reviewers are assessing the work, the article is labelled as “Awaiting peer review”. This forms part of the title and is shown in the Open Peer Review summary box within the article HTML and PDF. As soon as a referee report is received, it is published alongside the article and the current approval rating is displayed. As additional reports are received, the peer review status is updated. All articles remain fully published and available on F1000Research regardless of their peer review status.

Once an article receives two ‘Approved’ or two ‘Approved with Reservations’ status and one ‘Approved’ status, it will be indexed in PubMed and other bibliographic databases. All versions of the article, along with any associated data sets and referee reports, will be deposited in PubMed Central.

Article revisions

At any time in the peer review process, the authors may choose to revise their article in response to the referee comments – when this happens, a new version is published and the original referees are re-invited to review. Referees can then publish an updated referee report, taking the revisions into account.

All versions of the article, and all referee reports, will remain published so that anyone may see the history of the article. If you previously reviewed the article, updating your review to give feedback on the revised version is very important, as it allows the authors and readers to see whether your concerns have been addressed satisfactorily.

Volunteer to be a referee

We would love to hear from you. Please contact our editorial office and let us know you are interested in reviewing. When contacting us, please attach a copy of your CV and complete this form, so that we can be sure you meet our Referee Criteria. Don’t hesitate to let us know if there is a particular article you would like to be considered for, however please bear in mind that ultimately, it is up to the authors whether they would like you to referee their article.

About F1000Research