To assess whether reports from reviewers recommended by authors show a bias in quality and recommendation for editorial decision, compared with reviewers suggested by other parties, and whether reviewer reports for journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models differ with regard to report quality and reviewer recommendations.Retrospective analysis of the quality of reviewer reports using an established Review Quality Instrument, and analysis of reviewer recommendations and author satisfaction surveys.BMC Infectious Diseases and BMC Microbiology are similar in size, rejection rates, impact factors and editorial processes, but the former uses open peer review while the latter uses single-blind peer review. The Journal of Inflammation has operated under both peer review models.BioMed Central biology and medical journals. BMC Infectious Diseases, 200 reviewer reports submitted to BMC Microbiology and 400 reviewer reports submitted to the Journal of Inflammation.Two hundred reviewer reports submitted to BMC Infectious Diseases, BMC Microbiology and the Journal of Inflammation). For BMC Infectious Diseases, the overall quality of reviewer reports measured by the Review Quality Instrument was 5% higher than for BMC Microbiology (p=0.042). For the Journal of Inflammation, the quality of reports was the same irrespective of the peer review model used.For each journal, author-suggested reviewers provided reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but were significantly more likely to recommend acceptance, irrespective of the peer review model (p<0.0001 for BMC Infectious Diseases were of higher quality than single-blind reports for BMC Microbiology. There was no difference in quality of peer review in the Journal of Inflammation under open peer review compared with single blind.Reviewers suggested by authors provide reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but are significantly more likely to recommend acceptance. Open peer review reports for  BMC Microbiology operates single-blind peer review while BMC Infectious Diseases operates open peer review).This is the first study to compare quality of peer review between two journals that are very similar in most aspects but differ in peer review model .It is the first study to analyse the effect of change in peer review model across a single journal , resulting in a well-powered study in three different journals publishing research in both biology and medicine.BMC Infectious Diseases and BMC Microbiology, and did not confer about their ratings for individual reports for any journal.We observed moderate agreement between raters for peer review report quality, although the raters did not discuss the rating for Journal of Inflammation section of the study than that used for the BMC Infectious Diseases and BMC Microbiology section, due to insufficient number of manuscripts fulfilling the inclusion criteria.We had to use a different study design for the Most scholarly journals operate one of three types of peer review models: single blind, where the reviewers know the identity of the authors but not vice versa; open peer review, where authors and reviewers both know each other's identity, or double-blind peer review where the author and reviewer names are both blinded. Some journals publish reviewer reports (signed or anonymous) and authors’ responses together with accepted articles. Many journals allow, or in some cases require, authors who submit manuscripts to suggest potential reviewers. This information is available to editors who are responsible for selecting appropriate reviewers.Previous studies have compared quality of reviewer reports under open and single-blind peer review across various journals,The objective of this study was to assess whether the reviewers suggested by the authors are biased in their assessment of a manuscript, and whether the quality of their reports is different from reports prepared by reviewers suggested by editors. A second objective was to compare open peer review with single-blind peer review. This study was the first to analyse a large number of reviewer reports  in both medical and biology journals, and compare quality of reviewer reports between open and single-blind peer review models and between author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers.The initial findings from this research were presented in poster format at the 7th Peer Review Congress in Chicago in 2013. The poster has been deposited on F1000 Posters.10BMC Microbiology, which operates single-blind peer review, and BMC Infectious Diseases, which operates open peer review. BMC Microbiology and BMC Infectious Diseases were launched in 2000 as part of the BMC series of journals.BMC Microbiology and BMC Infectious Diseases are similar in terms of size, impact factors and rejection rates, and cover similar subject areas . This was achieved by searching the journal's database for consecutive submissions in the analysed period 2010–2011. The Journal of Inflammation published fewer original research articles and a larger proportion of review articles and case reports that were not suitable for our analysis. In the Journal of Inflammation, we analysed 200 reviewer reports for research manuscripts submitted consecutively counting back from the date of change of peer review model (under open peer review), and 200 counting forward (under single-blind peer review). There was an insufficient number of research article submissions that had two reviewers, one suggested by the authors and one by another party. We analysed 193 manuscripts, in total, that had between one and five reviewers. As a result, for the Journal of Inflammation, we analysed reports spanning a longer period of time (2007–2011), and the number of reports provided by author-suggested reviewers was not equal to that provided by non-author-suggested reviewers . In each of eviewers .BMC Microbiology and BMC Infectious Diseases, formal discussions were not held between the raters on how to use the RQI. However, before analysing reports for the Journal of Inflammation, the raters agreed on the criteria for each score on the RQI before rating the peer review reports (see Discussion section).Each peer review report was rated using an established Review Quality Instrument (RQI)For the journals studied, peer reviewers could choose one of six recommendations suggested in the reviewer form, or choose not to provide recommendation. To facilitate the analysis, we grouped these recommendations into four categories .All corresponding authors were asked to complete author surveys after publication of their article . The survey consists of 18 questions related to different aspects of the editorial and production processes, of which one is, ‘How helpful were the reviewers’ comments?’. The authors were asked to score their answers to the questions on a scale from 1 (very poor) to 5 (very good). We compared the authors’ ratings for the question on the helpfulness of peer review comments compared to scores for other questions.It was previously shownBMC Microbiology and BMC Infectious Diseases (in which each article had one reviewer of each type), and using the unpaired test in the Journal of Inflammation. Bonferroni correction was applied for eight tests in each journal.Inter-rater agreement was measured by weighted κ with quadratic weights. For each article and reviewer, the mean of the two rater scores was then used in subsequent analyses. Review quality was compared between open and single-blind review models using the unpaired Mann-Whitney U test. Review quality was compared between author suggested and other reviewers, using the paired Mann-Whitney U test in To test whether author-suggested reviewers were more positive than other reviewers, we coded reviewer recommendations as reject=0, revise=1, or accept=2, and treated this value as the response in linear regression with reviewer type (author suggested or other) as the predictor. Interaction terms with review model (open or single blind) were included in exploratory analysis but dropped if found to be non-significant.Association of reviewer recommendations with the review model was tested in logistic regression with review model (open or single blind) as the response, and reviewer recommendation coded as a three-level categorical predictor .Association of reviewer recommendations with the final decision was tested in logistic regression with the final decision as the response and reviewer recommendation coded as a three-level categorical predictor  with different effects for author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers. Interaction terms with review model (open or single blind) were also included in exploratory analysis but dropped if found to be non-significant.In all regression analyses, each review was treated as one observation and cluster SEs used to allow for multiple reviews of each paper.Responses to author surveys were tested using the two-sample Mann-Whitney U test.All analyses were conducted in R.The analysed journals and reports are shown in tables 1BMC Microbiology and BMC Infectious Diseases, with weighted κ values generally around 0.4 or higher. For the Journal of Inflammation, where the raters agreed on the criteria for each score of the RQI before rating the reports, the agreement was stronger for six of eight questions, but still in a moderate range (see online supplementary table S1). Our agreements were lower than found in previous studies using the RQI,We found moderate agreement between the raters for BMC Infectious Diseases (open peer review) compared with BMC Microbiology , 5 (constructiveness) and 6 (supplying appropriate evidence to substantiate comments) of the RQI, there was a significantly higher score for Journal of Inflammation, however, no significant differences were seen in review quality between open and single-blind models (see online supplementary table S2).For the BMC Infectious Diseases (open peer review) than the scores obtained by reviewers in BMC Microbiology (single-blind peer review). However, these differences are not significant when adjusted for multiple testing. No other questions showed significant differences between author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers (see online supplementary tables S3 and S4).There is nominally significant evidence that non-author-suggested reviewers obtained higher scores on Q6 (how well the reviewer substantiated their comments) and Q7 (comments on the author’s interpretation of results) in Journal of Inflammation, a nominally significant difference in review quality was seen for Q3 (comments on strengths and weaknesses of the method), but this was not significant after correction for multiple testing. No other significant differences were seen in review quality between author suggested and other reviewers (see online supplementary table S5).In the BMC Infectious Diseases (open peer review) and BMC Microbiology (single-blind peer review) the numbers of reviewer recommendations of each kind were similar, suggesting a lack of difference between open and single-blind peer review models . About two-thirds of author-suggested reviewers recommend acceptance and only 2–5% recommended rejection . Again, there was no significant difference between open and single-blind review models  compared with the author-suggested reviewer (p=1.3×10−5). There were no differences between BMC Infectious Diseases and BMC Microbiology in this respect. However, in the Journal of Inflammation, there was no significant difference between author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in predicting the final decision.We found 13 manuscripts in BMC Microbiology (single-blind peer review), 685 for BMC Infectious Diseases (open peer review) and 49 (open peer review) and 47 (single-blind peer review) for the Journal of Inflammation.We analysed all author surveys that were available at the end of September 2013: 741 surveys for BMC Infectious Diseases felt that reviewer comments were more helpful than did the authors in BMC Microbiology . However, most other questions relating to managing other editorial and production processes on the manuscript tended to be scored more favourably (p<0.05) as well.Authors in Journal of Inflammation, we did not find statistically significant differences between surveys returned by authors of manuscripts that underwent open or single-blind peer review, for any question regarding the editorial and production processes.For the BMC Infectious Diseases (open peer review) and BMC Microbiology (single-blind peer review), two journals that differ in peer review model but are otherwise very similar. We also assessed the effect of change in peer review model within a single journal, the Journal of Inflammation, which has changed its peer review model. It gave us unique opportunity to assess the impact of the peer review model on the quality of peer review and recommendations made by the reviewers. In the analysed journals, we were also able to compare the quality of reports and recommendations provided by reviewers suggested by the authors, compared with reviewers suggested by other parties . The large sample size of analysed reports ensured statistically robust results.The peer review process in journals has been criticised for being slow, inconsistent and biased.BMC Infectious Diseases (open peer review) compared with BMC Microbiology (single-blind peer review), but we did not find a difference for the open versus single-blind review in the Journal of Inflammation. These results suggest that it may be advantageous to use open peer review but they do not undermine the validity of using the single-blind approach.The main findings are that the quality of peer review reports was slightly higher in quality of peer reviewer reports written by author-suggested reviewers compared with those written by reviewers suggested by other parties, but in all three journals the reviewers suggested by the authors were much less likely to recommend rejection and more likely to recommend acceptance than reviewers suggested by other parties. Overall reviewer recommendations were similar in BMC Infectious Diseases compared with BMC Microbiology, suggesting no difference between open and single-blind peer review. However, in the Journal of Inflammation, we found that reviewers were more likely to recommend acceptance under open peer review as compared with under single-blind peer review. Author satisfaction was higher for BMC Infectious Diseases compared with BMC Microbiology, including the response to the question regarding the helpfulness of comments from peer reviewers. In the Journal of Inflammation, there was no difference in author satisfaction between the periods of time when the journal operated on open or single-blind peer review.In none of the three analysed journals did we find a difference in BMJ was one of the first journals to open up peer review in 1999.BMJ study found no significant differences between the anonymous and non-anonymous reviewers with regard to the quality of their reports.2The single-blind peer review model is the most common model of peer review used in journals in the field of biology and medicine. The British Journal of Psychiatry.BMC Microbiology (single-blind peer review) and in BMC Infectious Diseases (open peer review). Moreover, the signed reviewer reports scored significantly higher on the same two questions as our open reports for BMC Infectious Diseases (Q3 regarding methodology and Q5 regarding constructiveness of comments). It was also very encouraging to see that, of the 322 reviewers, as many as 245 (76%) agreed to sign their reports for the British Journal of Psychiatry.13Another study of open peer review, using a modified version of the RQI,Under open peer review, reviewers are more accountable for their reviews, which may account for the higher scores we observed for Q3 (discussing the strengths and weaknesses of the method), Q5 (the more constructive reports) and Q6 (supplying appropriate evidence to substantiate the comments), which led to a 5% improvement of the overall score (p=0.042).BMC Infectious Diseases compared to reviewer reports for BMC Microbiology, although it did not reach statistical significance .There is another possible explanation for the higher score that reviewer reports obtained on open peer review for Question 3 . Medical research follows several distinct types of defined study designs  and BMC Microbiology (single-blind peer review), recommendations made by non-author-suggested reviewers were a better predictor of the final decision to accept or reject the manuscript than recommendations made by author-suggested reviewers. It seems that these reviews carried more weight with journal editors (unconsciously or consciously).Author-suggested reviewers tend to provide more favourable recommendations than other types of reviewers. This result is consistent for the three journals we analysed, irrespective of the peer review model. This is also consistent with previous studies on this topic.Journal of Inflammation, we found that reviewers provided significantly more favourable recommendations under open peer review. This effect was found in some of the previous studiesJournal of Inflammation is smaller than BMC Microbiology or BMC Infectious Diseases, and its analysed reports span a longer period of time, from September 2007  to September 2011. The change in peer review model was also accompanied by a change in editorship and coincided with the journal receiving its first impact factor. It is possible that these factors impacted on how the peer reviewers were selected, and how they perceived the journal and made recommendations.In the BMC Infectious Diseases (open peer review) gave slightly higher scores for the question on the helpfulness of reviewers’ comments, compared with BMC Microbiology authors (single-blind peer review). However, they also gave higher scores for every other question, so it may be the case that the overall editorial process was perceived to be better at BMC Infectious Diseases, or that it simply reflects different priorities among research fields. The score for the Journal of Inflammation regarding helpfulness of peer reviewers’ comments was higher for open than for single-blind peer review, but did not reach significance.Authors on The RQI17BMC Microbiology (single-blind peer review) and BMC Infectious Diseases (open peer review), formal discussions on how to use the RQIJournal of Inflammation, the raters explicitly discussed the rating scale and agreed broadly on how they would score individual questions in general terms. Following this, we found improved rater agreement for all questions (see online supplementary table S1). However, the raters did not confer about the ratings for individual reports for any journal. The raters were not blinded to the identity of the reviewers. However, as the raters were not involved in managing peer review on these journals, the names of the reviewers were not familiar.We found only a moderate level of agreement between the raters of the quality of referee reports. Prior to rating the quality of reports for Journal of Inflammation as used for BMC Infectious Diseases and BMC Microbiology. The Journal of Inflammation did not have a sufficient number of manuscripts reviewed by two referees, one of whom was suggested by the authors and one not. As a result, we did not have an equal number of reports from author- and non-author-suggested reviewers.We were not able to use exactly the same research design for the Journal of Inflammation. Although we analysed all available author surveys, it is possible that the lack of statistical significance of the results is due to the low number of available surveys rather than the lack of impact of peer review model.Another limitation of the study is the low number of author surveys available for the BMC Microbiology and BMC Infectious Diseases because the journals have a similar profile (Journal of Inflammation may reflect temporal trends, such as the change of editorship noted above. To reduce the impact of such biases we selected articles sequentially by order of submission, starting from the date of change of review model.We chose  profile  and the This study is the first to investigate the effect of author-suggested peer reviewers and openness of peer review, on the quality of peer review in the same journal and between very similar journals in the field of biology as well as medicine. We show that, in agreement with previous studies,Author-suggested reviewers tend to recommend acceptance more often than non-author-suggested reviewers, but the quality of peer review reports is similar regardless of the source of peer reviewer suggestions, which is also in agreement with previous reports.9


The job of a scientist is to make a discovery and then communicate this new knowledge to others. For a scientist to be successful, he or she needs to be able to claim credit or priority for discoveries throughout their career. However, despite being fundamental to the reward system of science, the principles for establishing the "priority of discovery" are rarely discussed. Here we break down priority into two steps: disclosure, in which the discovery is released to the world-wide community; and validation, in which other scientists assess the accuracy, quality and importance of the work. Currently, in biology, disclosure and an initial validation are combined in a journal publication. Here, we discuss the advantages of separating these steps into disclosure via a preprint, and validation via a combination of peer review at a journal and additional evaluation by the wider scientific community. A scientist conducts experiments, analyzes the data from these experiments, and then arrives at a new understanding of the natural world. Once confident of their discovery, the scientist will then transmit this new knowledge to the rest of the scientific community. If the work is original and the evidence is accurate and compelling, it is expected that other scientists will give credit to the scientist who made the original discovery. However, this process of establishing “priority" for the discovery is not straightforward and disputes over priority have permeated every epoch of modern science.In his classic article on the priority of discovery, Robert Merton describes how many of the early giants in physics and chemistry  were embroiled in battles over priority . Darwin’Establishing priority for a discovery is not straightforward and disputes over priority have permeated every epoch of modern science.Here, we re-examine whether systems that have been used to establish priority in the past are well-suited to the present day. With many more scientists on the planet, all accessing the same information and many seeking to answer reasonably evident next questions, competitive situations arise more frequently. Furthermore, the speed of global communication has increased dramatically. These changes in science and communication technologies have led us to revisit two questions: how should a new discovery be communicated, and how should priority be established?Can scientists learn from the patent system with regard to defining priority? After all, the granting of a patent also involves assigning intellectual property based upon an original invention or discovery. A patent transfers knowledge into an asset that can be bought and sold; many scientists use patents to claim and protect their work for purposes of commercialization. However, the patent system and science work in very different ways. First, the granting of a patent is defined by a set of written guidelines. In contrast, scientific priority is guided by the culture and practices within a scientific community. Second, patent laws differ significantly in various countries, whereas the unwritten rules of scientific priority apply to all countries since knowledge is global. Third, the granting of a patent is binary; the patent is either granted or it is not, although this decision can be challenged in a court. In science, on the other hand, priority becomes evident through a process in which scientists credit one another’s work in papers and at meetings; there are no appointed scientific inspectors or judges, with the exception of the very tiny fraction of scientific work being considered by prize committees. This means that it can take years for work to be evaluated and priority to be established.exclude others , thereby serving the goal of commercialization. The invention only enters the public domain for free use after many years. In contrast, scientists publish their results to encourage others to make use of and build upon them. Indeed, priority can only be established when other scientists validate (i.e. replicate) the original discovery and affirm its importance . We therefore need to look beyond the patent system for guidance.There is another, even more fundamental, difference between the patent system and science. The primary goal of a patent is to stake territory as one’s own and to Merton made an interesting analogy between a discovery and personal property. When a scientist makes a discovery, at that moment, it belongs to the scientist and no one else. However, while this private eureka moment is a thrilling experience, exclusive ownership of the discovery is of little value, as it neither advances the scientist’s reputation nor serves science as a whole. Thus, the scientist must eventually disclose the discovery and transfer the property to the scientific community at large. Once transferred, the discovery is no longer under the control of the original investigator, and all scientists have the right to make use of this new knowledge. Implicit in signing over his/her property, the scientist expects the scientific community to acknowledge their contribution. If the scientist does not receive this credit, then he/she feels that an injustice has occurred.This relationship between the individual scientist and the scientific community highlights two steps in the establishment of priority. First, there is the transfer of knowledge from the scientist to the broad scientific community: we call this first step “disclosure”. In a second step, the scientific community responds to the disclosure by assessing whether it is correct and of sufficient interest to merit attention and further development. It is this second step, which we call "validation", that establishes the scientist’s reputation and results in rewards, such as career advancement and grants that enable more scientific work. However, unlike disclosure, which is a discrete time-stamped event, validation can take variable amounts of time, and the most novel discoveries often take the longest to be acknowledged by the community. Next, we discuss the role of these two steps in establishing priority in more detail.A disclosure for establishing priority should involve a fair and complete transfer of knowledge from the scientist to the world-wide scientific enterprise. An acceptable method of disclosure will generally fulfill the following four criteria: (i) inclusion of all of the data along with a written interpretation of the data; (ii) a full description of the methodologies used, so that the work can be replicated and extended by other scientists; (iii) communication through a widely-recognized and stable venue (which must have mechanisms in place to ensure the permanence of the work); (iv) inclusion of a time stamp to indicate when the work was disclosed. What are the different options for disclosure?The publication of a paper in a peer-reviewed journal fulfills these four criteria. However, publishing in a journal also requires the scientist to hand over control of the timing of disclosure to the journal. Given the unpredictable nature of editorial rejection, peer-review, and the publication process, the delay between the submission of a paper and its publication can range from a few weeks to more than two years. Furthermore, except for a handful of journals , there is no public record of the original submission and the ways in which the manuscript changed during the peer-review process. The lack of such a record precludes using the date of the original submission as the date of disclosure. In addition, for papers published in subscription journals, disclosure is limited to those scientists who have access to those journals. Thus, while we later argue for the value of journals in validation, in their current form they slow down and create inequities in how knowledge is transferred from the scientist to the world-wide scientific community.A preprint server allows a scientist to post a completed study on the internet and immediately disclose the work without access barriers . A preprA manuscript posted as a preprint could satisfy the four criteria listed above for disclosure, with certain qualifications. Since preprints are similar or identical in content to submitted journal manuscripts, criteria 1 and 2 can be met if the manuscript contains the necessary data, interpretation and details about methodologies. Whether criteria 3 and 4 are met depends upon the nature of preprint server, specifically whether it has the ability maintain a permanent record and whether it is highly visible in the relevant scientific communities.A preprint server allows a scientist to post a completed study on the internet and immediately disclose the work without access barriers.Several decades ago, presenting work at a scientific meeting was often accepted by colleagues in a field as a reasonable mechanism for establishing priority. In these earlier days, however, the entire field of molecular biology could gather at a Cold Spring Harbor Meeting, which is no longer possible. Furthermore, the amount of data and methodologies presented in a meeting talk or poster is usually insufficient to meet criteria 1 and 2 and is generally not retained in the form of a permanent record (criteria 4).While meetings fall short as a reliable mechanism for disclosure, we also recognize their substantial benefits. Meeting presentations allow scientists to get feedback on and subsequently improve their work, and are also outstanding training experiences for students and postdocs. Unfortunately, meetings are becoming increasingly filled with published or nearly published work. However, if preprints become widely accepted as a form of disclosure for the purposes of establishing priority, then more scientists might be more willing to share their work at meetings prior to journal publication.th century; While the timing of disclosure is important for establishing priority, racing to be first at the expense of quality could spell disaster for a scientist, especially if he/she gets a reputation for rushing out low-quality work. Moreover, we believe that a strict, time-stamp-based “winner takes all” philosophy of priority  has strained the peer-review system, which seemed to work reasonably well until just a couple of decades ago . Some haIn this article we have discussed how priority in science is established in two phases: disclosure and validation. In the life sciences, disclosure and the first stage of validation (peer review) are currently combined in the publication of a paper. However, science could be better served by first disclosing the work in a publically accessible forum and then, either simultaneously or at a later date, submitting the work to a journal for peer review. Disclosing manuscripts before they have been peer-reviewed would bring many benefits: the scientist would retain control over the timing of disclosure; other scientists would be able to provide feedback (positive or negative) before the work was published; other scientists would also be able to build on the work if they wished; and the public would benefit from the catalytic effects that ensue when knowledge is shared.One way to implement earlier disclosure would be for journals themselves to post papers on their own website as soon as they are submitted, but this is unlikely to be universally implemented and may be awkward for authors if their paper is rejected. As discussed here and elsewhere, another option would be to use a preprint server. In February 2016, at the Accelerating Science and Publication in Biology (ASAPbio) meeting, the attendees – who included biologists (both junior and senior), funders and journals – concluded through discussion and private vote that preprints should constitute an acceptable means of disclosure for the purposes of establishing priority in the life sciences, and also be accepted as "evidence of achievement" when considering applications for grants, jobs and promotions .However, some biologists worry that submitting a preprint will lead to them being “scooped” if other scientists do not pay attention to work reported in preprints and do not cite them. What lessons might biologists learn from physicists regarding preprints and priority? arXiv has a very large intake of manuscripts  and physicists have developed a habit of checking arXiv every morning to learn about the latest work in their field. Thus, the arXiv preprint server has become a highly visible venue for announcing new discoveries in physics. If preprint-based disclosure for priority is to take hold in the life and biomedical sciences, submissions will need to grow and preprints will need to be made more visible and more easily discoverable than they are now. In addition, trustworthy and community-led governance of preprints will be essential, and funding agencies and universities will need to put policies in place to accept preprints in applications for grants, jobs, and promotions.Any preprint system must be coupled to a reliable system of validation. Journals have established an infrastructure for peer review, and they provide the present-day gold standard for validation. However, as noted above, peer review is far from perfect and must be combined with other forms of validation that take place over longer time scales and involve more than a handful of editors and referees. In the past few years, new forms of post-publication assessment, review and discussion have emerged, such as article-level metrics, blogs, social media and websites such as PubMed Commons and PubPeer . In our  In the interests of transparency, eLife includes the editorial decision letter and accompanying author responses. A lightly edited version of the letter sent to the authors after peer review is shown, indicating the most substantive concerns; minor comments are not usually included.eLife for consideration as a Feature Article. Your article has been discussed by two Deputy Editors and Peter Rogers (the Features Editor).Thank you for submitting your article, "What defines 'priority of discovery' in the life sciences" to I am writing to tell you that we will be willing to publish a shortened and revised version of the article.Before publication, the revisions that need to be made are listed below:1) The end of the article is somewhat underwhelming and needs to be beefed up. To do this please outline i) your recommendations for improving peer review; ii) your recommendations for improving how research is assessed after it has been peer-reviewed and published.2) In the subsection "Disclosure through a journal", please be more explicit about the problems caused by the lack of a public record of the initial submission etc. Saying it is not possible to back-date etc is too vague.3) Please say something about the ASAPBIO meeting, and maybe cite a report of that meeting.4) In the Conclusions section please discuss the drawbacks of the proposal that journals post submissions before peer-review . Also, please mention that some journals (eg F1000 Research) already do something like this.5) The original version of your essay was strongly in favor of the single preprint server model – is there a reason why this preference is not expressed in this version?Finally, I propose deleting some sentences in the section on Validation  that do not seem to belong where they are, but which you might want to include somewhere else in the article. The revisions that need to be made are listed below:1) The end of the article is somewhat underwhelming and needs to be beefed up. To do this please outline i) your recommendations for improving peer review; ii) your recommendations for improving how research is assessed after it has been peer-reviewed and published.We have revised the final paragraph to incorporate an overall recommendation for post-publication peer-review, although kept it short in the interest of brevity.2) In the subsection "Disclosure through a journal", please be more explicit about the problems caused by the lack of a public record of the initial submission etc. Saying it is not possible to back-date etc is too.We have added a further explanation on this point.3) Please say something about the ASAPBIO meeting, and maybe cite a report of that meeting.We have now mentioned the ASAPbio meeting in the conclusion and reference a meeting report (to be published in a week).4) In the Conclusions section please discuss the drawbacks of the proposal that journals post submissions before peer-review . Also, please mention that some journals (eg F1000 Research) already do something like this.We have added a sentence of why we do not think journal posting upon submission will become wide-spread and also now reference F1000 Research as an example of such a platform.5) The original version of your essay was strongly in favor of the single preprint server model – is there a reason why this preference is not expressed in this version.We have added such a section back, but framed it more in terms of how a single preprint archive is need to enable the widespread visibility needed for priority of discovery.Finally, I propose deleting some sentences in the section on Validation  that do not seem to belong where they are, but which you might want to include somewhere else in the article.We have re-added this sentence where it seems to fit .As final note, we kept the Abstract at essentially the same length. The Abstract as it stands provides a fairly complete summary of the main points of the article for those who will not read to read farther (which will be many). We also found similar Point of View article with similar or even longer abstracts.


One of the foundations of the scientific method is to be able to reproduce experiments and corroborate the results of research that has been done before. However, with the increasing complexities of new technologies and techniques, coupled with the specialisation of experiments, reproducing research findings has become a growing challenge. Clearly, scientific methods must be conveyed succinctly, and with clarity and rigour, in order for research to be reproducible. Here, we propose steps to help increase the transparency of the scientific method and the reproducibility of research results: specifically, we introduce a peer-review oath and accompanying manifesto. These have been designed to offer guidelines to enable reviewers (with the minimum friction or bias) to follow and apply open science principles, and support the ideas of transparency, reproducibility and ultimately greater societal impact. Introducing the oath and manifesto at the stage of peer review will help to check that the research being published includes everything that other researchers would need to successfully repeat the work. Peer review is the lynchpin of the publishing system: encouraging the community to consciously (and conscientiously) uphold these principles should help to improve published papers, increase confidence in the reproducibility of the work and, ultimately, provide strategic benefits to authors and their institutions. Several commentators have concluded that weaknesses in the way that research investigations are currently conducted, and how their results are disseminated via article publication have become detrimental to the scientific process7. As the technological sophistication of science increases, and the equipment used becomes more specialised, the data generated are harder to represent in traditional media, and reporting how experiments were performed so that independent researchers can repeat them becomes progressively harder.Science builds on itself. New knowledge is gained in the context of the enlightenment of earlier discoveries and, for the foundations to remain solid each discovery must be accurate and reliable. But science in the real world is messy, and advances haltingly and piecewise. Often, prior information is incomplete, so conclusions drawn need revising in the light of new, later evidence. This means that self-reference and self-checking are cornerstones of the scientific method; and, having reported our experiments, it is vital that readers are able to repeat them and understand how we reached our conclusions. Various studies have shown that, for a study to be successfully reproduced, information presented in the literature is often inadequate and the underlying data not readily available9. As attendees of theAllBio: Open Science & Reproducibility Best Practice Workshop, we discussed how the problem of keeping science transparent and reproducible in an increasingly technology-driven, and specialised, domain could be addressed.Open science is a movement that seeks to ensure that the results and the data of scientific research are, and continue to be, available to all. One way in which reproducibility issues can be tackled is through the use of open-science and open-data practicesOne route, at the heart of scientific endeavour, is through the peer-review process. Peer review is an important gatekeeper and key component of scientific discourse. Before research findings can be formally accepted, they must be evaluated and commented upon by other domain experts, who provide advice about the quality or validity of the work to journal editors and/or readers . Importantly, peer review happens at a personal, rather than institutional, level and is carried out by individuals; it is therefore an ideal mechanism for engaging most researchers, given that all scientists peer review or are peer reviewed.12; its weaknesses are many and varied, including the time available to perform thorough reviews, reviewers’ expertise, journals’ perception of relevance/interest/impact, and so on. Arguably, one of the most significant problems – certainly the one that generates most friction – is that reviewers can safely dispense self-serving and biased critiques, fully protected by the mask of anonymity. In some instances, anonymity may be the only pragmatic option, but in the interest of objectivity and constructive discourse it shouldn’t be the cornerstone of the peer-review process. Scientists have become sufficiently frustrated by these issues to devisead hoc solutions to help safeguard the quality of reviews, and allow reviewers to affirm that they will review in an ethical and professional way, and encourage clearer review processes. This has led to the articulation of various reviewer’s oaths ; it is these that inspired our discussions and prompted this article.The peer-review process is not infallibleAn outcome of our debate was the formulation of an addition to these oaths that helps codify the role of reviewers, encouraging and promoting best practices to ensure that the science they review is as open and reproducible as possible. The amendment includes guidelines not only on how to review professionally, but also on how to support transparent, reproducible and responsible research, while optimising its societal impact and maximizing its visibility.16) we therefore propose is as follows  necessary to make a complete, independent assessment.I will, before I review, ensure that I have everything , with the understanding that adherence to best open-science practices may require further effort from you.I will support others in writing open reviews, where it is appropriate for me to do so.I will decline to review if I am not an appropriate reviewer (whether because of my expertise or because of my relationship with the author(s)). In doing so, I will provide journal editors with an honest appraisal of these issues, and will openly explain how I reached my decision so that alternative reviewers may be found.Here is how we envisage the review process from an open-science reviewer's point of view:We believe that combining the open-science principle with some of the other key peer-review principles will help the scientific community to repeat published experiments, and to reach the same, or similar, conclusions. The authors have done a nice job responding to my critique of the original version, and the resulting revised version is much easier to read. Reading the other reviews, and the comments, I can see that this article is sparking a good amount of discussion on an important topic. Clearly this will not be the last word on the subject, and that is a good thing.I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. The manuscript has been improved compared to the first version. Despite the authors laudable intentions, I am still unconvinced that this will prove terribly useful to the scientific community, but I do not see any reason why this paper should not be indexed and referenced.I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. The revised paper is much improved in terms of its (now appropriate and not tedious) length and clarity of statements. I still see a problem with the proposed absolute requirement (listed as the first principle) of disclosing the reviewer's identity. While noble in principle, I think it is unrealistic at this time; if so, compromising the first principle would appear to make the subsequent ones partly irrelevant. On the other hand, the authors clearly explained their decision to avoid addressing one specific issue of the reviewing process - frequent requests for tedious and time consuming experiments that do not contribute substantially to the main point of the paper, often precluding publication. As an experimental scientist, however, I do see this point as critical and think that its resolution would  contribute more to the fairness of review than disclosing the reviewer's identity.Finally, I am still surprised that the related work by Bienz and Weston is not discussed and/or cited.I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. The principles outlined here are important, and this piece is certainly timely. I have two suggestions to improve the manuscript.  First, as currently constituted, the manuscript is a bit repetitive, with a large text box recapitulating what is also laid out in much the same format in the body of the manuscript. Perhaps each of the major points could be expounded upon in the text. Second, while it is hard to argue with the specific tenets enumerated here, there are quite a lot of them. I guess my feeling is that for ideas like this to be more widely adopted that it would be helpful if the core principles could be boiled down to a more manageable size . I applaud the authors for doing their part to increase openness in scientific publishing, something I agree is very much needed.I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Thanks for your helpful and candid report Larry. We agree the manuscript was a little repetitive and so we have made it much more succinct, by concentrating on the open science principle we want to champion. We have also condensed the oath into 4 principles with an accompanying rationale and made it available on FigShare, which should make it much easier to follow and reuse. I think this article makes many good points, and I also agree with the other critiques. However, I do see danger in full transparency. The problem is that significance of study can be  subjective and used in a biased way to sway readers towards a view of greater importance, in order to achieve a good standing with the authors.  At this point in time, it is important for editors of other non-transparent journals to remind reviewers of the key aspects of this oath – to critically read the paper and make constructive comments as best as they can.  Editors need to use their power to delete inappropriate reviews or reviewers.I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Thanks Suzanne for your helpful and candid report. We have now satisfied the other reviews to make the oath clearer and simpler to use. We take your point that perceived impact can indeed sway readers and we certainly agree that as well as the scientific community practicing open science and reviewing openly,  journals and journal editors need to play a role in ensuring that reviewers are doing a job that ensures integrity - we believe they can use the principles of the oath to do this. This manuscript was written by participants of a workshop entitled "AllBio: Open Science & Reproducibility Best Practice Workshop" which took place at the TGAC in Norwich UK in September 2014. The alleged purpose of the oath and manifesto proposed in this manuscript is to make "transparency, reproducibility and citizen-scientist engagement the default parameters for performing sound research."This is not a scientific manuscript, and it neither contains data, nor reviews a scientific topic. I am thus left wondering why such a manuscript should need to be peer reviewed. After reading it, I certainly cannot  conclude that it is scientifically sound. The best I can conclude is that it is not scientifically unsound.Although this manuscript is very short, I must say that I found it rather difficult to read because of its structure which contains many redundancies and of the fuzziness of its purpose. One aspect that particularly bothers me is the unquestioned assumption that open refereeing will improve reproducibility. The first thing the authors should clarify is what they mean by reproducibility since there are at least two types that I can think of:The first one concerns data reproducibility (or robustness). In other words will similar data, leading to the same conclusions, be obtained if the experiment is repeated (on a different day and/or with different samples and/or in a different place and/or by different people etc…). The second type of reproducibility relates to the capacity of other scientists to reproduce an experiment described in a published manuscript. I suspect that when they refer to 'science reproducibility', the authors refer to the latter type, although the first type is the most important one in my eyes.http://icis.ucdavis.edu/?p=505 ), and especially the idea of reversing the Oath and the Manifesto.The authors duly acknowledge that they have been inspired by reviewer's oaths previously proposed by others (refs 13-15), and if I am being completely honest, I do not find that the set of 17 rules they propose represent a significant improvement on those previously proposed oaths. Because I do not want to plagiarise Jonathan Eisen, I will simply suggest that the authors should very seriously consider following the many suggestions he has made on his blog to improve this paper  scientists or minorities, who could, at least in theory, face severe repercussions for criticizing the work of senior/powerful colleagues who sit on editorial boards or grant panels. In my mind this conflict has never been properly addressed; while I believe it is completely reasonable for tenured scientists to be open and accountable in their reviews , it is questionable whether this should be required uniformly across science. The second concern with open reviewing is the potential legal backlash of scientists being sued by litigious authors who feel aggrieved by a reviewer's published comments. We are seeing this already on PubPeer and elsewhere. This raises the question of who assumes legal responsibility for the content of a signed review. In the case ofFinally, I would prompt the authors of this paper to consider, and ideally speculate on, ways their oath  might be implemented and incentivised in science. Could it, for instance, be worked into the next REF in some way? How could this be achieved and what challenges would need to be overcome? How does this initiative relate to other emerging group-led initiatives, such as the Agenda for Open Research (https://agendaforopenresearch.org/)? There authors have no shortage of good intentions but as we know, there lies a world of groupthink and social inertia between good intentions and good practices.Regardless of the above concerns, I applaud this much-needed call for greater transparency in the peer review process.While I am supportive of this initiative, I do have some concerns about the way it is presented and I also wonder how adhering to it could be incentivised. I will outline below some suggestions for possible improvement:I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. F1000Research, we have implemented a system of co-authoring referee reports to help support junior researchers who feel that on their own they may be subject to repercussions from the authors. With regards to the legality of an open review onF1000Research, reviewers submit their report according to our terms and conditions which clearly state the report will be published under a CC BY license, and that the report must not be defamatory. However as a publisher we are also conscious about each review that is published on the site and we have system in place to ensure that nothing libel would be intentionally published. More generally, openness and transparency in signing a report means that they are on the whole much more civil and are of a constructive nature that encourages dialogue. We believe the peer review process should be a collaborative process and hence that is the environment we try to provide. Here is a letter of response from Rebecca Lawrence, Managing Director ofF1000Research, recently published in response to the recent libel story from the anonymous review on PubPeer:http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/comment/letters/an-anonymity-problem/2017051.article. Finally, just after we published the review we became aware of the Agenda for Open Research who have similar goals that align with us and they were kind enough to link to the oath in their guideline for reviewers. We fully support their initiative, and we will seek opportunities to collaborate where possible. You are right, it would be great to push to get open reviewing to be recognised as an official part of the REF (and other funding bodies) and acknowledged as a measurable scientific output. Here atF1000Research we are taking steps to make this happen; currently we mint each report with a DOI and we are heavily involved in thePeer Review Service project in collaboration withORCID andCASRAI.Thanks Chris for your very helpful and candid report. Like all of the reviewers have suggested we have simplified the oath and made it much clearer and simpler to use. Yes, we agree that some of the language used was difficult for non-native English speakers and hence we have made it clearer to read in places that may of caused confusion. We also agree with your point about new/junior reviewers who may feel exposed by openly reviewing someone more senior than them and have acknowledged that in the guidelines. Here at This article addresses a very important issue of peer review. Although, many of us tend to regard it in a way of "if it ain't broke, don't fix it", we also are often frustrated with the process and wish it were more fair, transparent and to the point . Thus, constructive approach to potential improvement of the peer review system is always welcome and should be encouraged. With this in mind, I support, in principle, publication of this manuscript. On the other hand, the way that the authors present their ideas is not perfect. Here is why:First they make a huge emphasis in their introductory remarks on experimental reproducibility and societal impact. However, their "oath" does not address these issues specifically and constructively; instead, it offers declarative statements which are mostly trivial and already represent part and parcel of today's peer review process . http://elifesciences.org/elife-news/a-reviewers-charter).Second, the authors do not address clearly one very important aspect of potential improvement of the review process which is "To request further experiments only as a last resort, and only if they are essential to validate the conclusions of the paper. No experiments extending the study beyond its conclusions, or with unreasonable cost or time implications, should be proposed. An estimate of time required for the additional work should be provided." This is a quote from Mariann Bienz and Kathy Weston who also addressed the issue of peer reviewing (Third, the "oath" is unreasonably long. Again, I suggest to look at the post by Bienz and Weston, which unlike the present paper, is much clearer, laconic and to the point.Fourth, the authors quite nonchalantly suggest to overturn the cornerstone of the present review system - its anonymity. What is the chance for that? The reason for such a step should be well reasoned and substantiated.I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. Thanks Vitaly for your very helpful and candid report. We have now explained what we hope to achieve from the oath, how we think it could address the issue of reproducibility and how the oath could have a positive societal impact in the scientific community. We believe at the researcher level there is a unique opportunity to help spread open science practices when reviewing articles and help improve what the community as a whole believes should be available in a paper in order for it to be reproduced. We agree with your point about not asking for additional experiments, however we have decided to concentrate fully on elucidating the requirements of the open science principle specifically and not the other principles. As with the other reviewers and comments we have taken all of your advice and shortened the oath to make it simpler for reuse. We also agree with your point about anonymity and we have discussed this in the manuscript on why we should move towards open peer review.


BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology was created from the merger of two journals within the BMC series published by BioMed Central: BMC Pharmacology and BMC Clinical Pharmacology. BMC Pharmacology operated anonymous peer review whereas BMC Clinical Pharmacology operated a fully open peer review policy where the identity of the reviewers was known to the editors, authors and readers. The merged journal also adopted a fully open peer review policy. Two years on we discuss the views and experiences of our Editorial Board Members towards open peer review on this biomedical journal. BMC series of journals was established in 2000 by BioMed Central to provide open access to research published across a range of disciplines in biology and medicine [BMC Veterinary Research 2005, BMC Systems Biology 2007 and BMC Psychology 2013 are among such examples). All the biology journals within the BMC series operate traditional anonymous peer review, where the authors do not know who the reviewers are. However, the medical journals were established with open peer review, where the identity of the reviewers is known to all parties – editors, authors and readers [The medicine . Over thBMC series, BMC Pharmacology  and BMC Clinical Pharmacology , joined forces under the new title BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology[Two years ago the pharmacology titles in the oxicology. The comBMC Pharmacology and Toxicology. In the end, the journal naturally retained the open peer review policy previously adopted by BMC Clinical Pharmacology – in keeping with all the other medical titles in the BMC series. BMC Cancer, another journal in the BMC series with biology and medicine disciplines, also operates open peer review.In merging a biology journal operating anonymous peer review with a medical journal operating open peer review, we debated what the peer review process should be on Under open peer review, authors know who reviewed their manuscript (reviewer reports are signed) and, if the manuscript is published, the reader will also see the reviewers’ comments and the authors’ response. These comments are published as part of the ‘pre-publication history’ accompanying the published article, which also contains all versions of the manuscript and (where relevant) editors’ comments. By making the peer review process completely transparent we aim to reduce the competing interests that can occur especially for a journal which frequently publishes research sponsored by pharmaceutical companies . See thiWhile many have recently discussed the benefits of open peer review including transparency, accountability and giving credit to reviewers -11, therBMC Pharmacology and BMC Clinical Pharmacology, we said that we would report on our findings of open peer review with the resulting biomedical journal. So, two years down the line, how have things fared with BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology?At the time of the merger of BMC Pharmacology & Toxicology represent a broad demographic from which to solicit views on open peer review given their variety of expertise in biology and clinical disciplines. Therefore, we surveyed the current members of the Editorial Board with eight questions . Half the replies were from medics (of whom a third were practicing clinicians) and half were from non-medical fields including biology, chemistry and pharmaceutical sciences. The anonymised answers are provided in Additional file Although some Editorial Board Members recognised the value of open peer review, commenting that it is more egalitarian, increasing accountability and transparency, it was felt that open peer reviews may be more difficult for early career researchers to provide - as has been noted again recently . Our surequally useful to those received under anonymous peer review. However, in previous research [In their role as authors, approximately half of the Editorial Board had published in an open peer review journal  the attitudes of particular groups based on gender/subject background/seniority towards different systems of peer review.BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology, will we continue to operate an open peer review system? Put simply: yes.So two years into the open peer review experiment on Among the Editorial Board Members who responded to our survey, there appears to be an overall preference for a peer review system that is double-blind . Other much larger surveys have also come to similar conclusions ,19,20. HBMC Pharmacology and Toxicology because of the ethical grounds for doing so [who reviewed the manuscript and what was said. Having access to peer reviews also provides valuable information for training purposes [We will continue with open peer review at doing so  and becadoing so ,23. Openpurposes ,25 and apurposes . And by purposes  and ‘stipurposes  open peeBMC series, many value the helpfulness, quality and detail of the reports. But given the responses received from our Editorial Board Members we need to make more of the fact that the pre-publication history is provided for readers and what it contains.From the feedback we receive more generally from authors on our open peer review journals in the BMC Pharmacology and Toxicology we’d certainly welcome your comments.If you have any further feedback on the open peer review policy operated by ECM, CON and MK are employed by BioMed Central. SH is employed by Nature Publishing Group.SH and CON designed the survey. EM and MK collated the data. MK analysed the data. EM wrote the first draft and revised the text. All authors contributed to the writing of the manuscript and approved the final version.Nature Communications. CON is Associate Publisher at BioMed Central and Editor of Biome. MK is the Deputy Biology Editor at BioMed Central.ECM is the Biology Editor at BioMed Central. SH is an Associate Editor at The pre-publication history for this paper can be accessed here:http://www.biomedcentral.com/2050-6511/15/55/prepubAnonymised survey responses from the Editorial Board.Click here for file


With the recent merger of the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) a heightened pressure for publication may become evident. Our objective was to determine whether there was a gap in the type of both medical degree designation and advanced degree designation among authorship in three United States-based academic emergency medicine journals.Journal of Emergency Medicine, Academic Emergency Medicine and Annals of Emergency Medicine for the type of degree designation that the first and senior authors had obtained for the years 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014.We reviewed the Journal of Emergency Medicine . Of those with dual degrees, osteopathic physicians were in the minority with 1.85% of osteopathic first authors and 0.60% of osteopathic senior authors attaining a dual degree. No statistical trend could be established for increased dual degree publications for osteopathic physicians over the study period, nor could a statistical trend be established for any of the journals studied.A total of 2.48% of all authors held a degree in osteopathic medicine. Osteopathic physician first authors contributed to 3.26% of all publications while osteopathic physician senior authors contributed 1.53%. No statistical trend could be established for the years studied for osteopathic physicians. However, we noted an overall trend for increased publication for allopathic senior authors (p=0.001), allopathic first authors with a dual degree (p=0.003) and allopathic senior authors with a dual degree (p=0.005). For each journal studied, no statistical trend could be established for osteopathic first or senior authors but a trend was noted for allopathic first and senior authors in the Journal of Emergency Medicine, Academic Emergency Medicine or Annals of Emergency Medicine over the last two decades. Despite a trend for increased publication by allopathic physicians in certain journals, there appears to be no trend for increased publication of osteopathic physicians in emergency medicine.Very few osteopathic physicians have published in the  With the recent merger of the American Osteopathic Association (AOA) and the Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) new standards will be established for scholarly activity criteria and designation for each specialty. The ACGME requires “all core faculty members to be involved in scholarly projects” with “one scientific peer-reviewed publication for every five core faculty members per year.”2Recent research has shown that 39% of allopathic emergency medicine (EM) residencies require their residents to participate in an “original research project,” but this research did not include osteopathic residencies or faculty members in these results.Annals of Emergency Medicine , Academic Emergency Medicine (AEM), and the Journal of Emergency Medicine (JEM). We chose journals based upon impact factor and citation half-life. For each author, reviewers designated medical degree based on the names listed with each article. An author’s graduate degree was determined by initial inspection of his or her suffix. For those with more than one advanced degree, both the medical degree and advanced degree were tallied for analysis. In articles published by a single author, the author was considered the first author for statistical purposes. All original articles, review articles, case reports, and image reports were reviewed for the type of medical degree the first and senior author had obtained from 1995, 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2014 by searching each journal’s web portal. We excluded from analysis articles such as media reviews, editorials, book reviews, letters to the editor and correspondences.This was a retrospective study of graduate degree (M.D. vs D.O.) trends in publications from the We obtained comparison of the proportions of allopathic and osteopathic physician authorship across the years by using simple descriptive statistics. The percentage of those holding both a medical degree and an advanced degree was also analyzed using descriptive statistics. We analyzed trends in authorship using simple linear regression.We reviewed 3,189 articles and 5,805 authors for the years studied. A total of 3,189 authors were considered first authors and 810 of these authors held a dual degree. A total of 573 manuscripts were authored by a single author as well. A total of 2,616 authors were considered the senior author on a manuscript, with 667 of these authors holding a dual degree.JEM, 2.57% (50/1943) in AEM and 2.20% (46/2091) in Annals were osteopathic physicians.Overall, 2.48% (144/5805) of authors held a degree in osteopathic medicine. Of those authors considered to be the first author, 3.26% (104/3189) held a degree in osteopathic medicine and 1.53% (40/2616) of senior authors held a degree in osteopathic medicine. Similarly, 1.85% (15/812) of first authors who held a dual advanced degree and 0.60% (4/667) of senior authors who held a dual advanced degree also had a degree in osteopathic medicine. Further analysis into each journal shows that 2.71% (48/1771) of all authors in In 1995 a total of 3.82% (21/550) of osteopathic physicians served in the first author role and 2.06% (9/436) of osteopathic physicians served in the senior author role, while in 2014 a total of 2.68% (19/708) and 1.46% (9/615) of osteopathic physicians served in this role . LikewisOverall, no trend was noted for increased osteopathic physician publication in either the first or senior author spot over time (p=0.375 and p=0.882). Neither could we establish a statistically significant trend for first and senior osteopathic physician publication over the years studied in any journal . In seveThis study highlights the significant disparity in degrees held by those publishing in three American academic EM journals. Based upon the results, osteopathic physicians publish less frequently in the journals studied and hold fewer advanced degrees as compared to their allopathic counterparts.Previous literature has shown that authors affiliated with osteopathic EM residencies are under-represented in high impact academic EM journals, but that study was only conducted for the year 2011.No study to date has directly explored why osteopathic physicians are less likely to publish manuscripts in journals, but several limitations for those with the osteopathic medical degree may exist that their allopathic counterparts do not face. For instance, allopathic residencies are at large academic institutions with a trend for increased funding, protected academic time, and large collaborative trials.7According to our results, allopathic physicians who hold a dual degree have been increasingly publishing manuscripts in the EM literature. In 2004, the American Association of Colleges of Osteopathic Medicine noted that only 26 osteopathic medical students were enrolled in a dual DO/PhD degree program, while in 2012 there were only 29.13Since the merger of the AOA and the ACGME, neither organization has commented on an updated research requirement for core faculty. As it stands however, very few core faculty osteopathic EM physicians may meet the requirement if the ACGME standards are adopted. One way to improve the academic output and lay the ground work of scholarly activity for osteopathic EM physicians may be to enroll in the American College of Emergency Physicians Emergency Medicine Basic Research Skills (EMBRS) workshop, the American College of Osteopathic Physicians Faculty Development Workshop, or the Medical Education Research Certification with the Council of Emergency Medicine Program Directors. These programs not only offer the fundamentals of research but also allow for mentoring and collaborative efforts amongst the participants.There are several limitations to this study. The authors cannot comment on the years that were not studied, which may have led to other osteopathic physicians who served as either the first or senior author that were not included in the study. The authors also cannot comment on the number of manuscripts submitted to each journal by osteopathic physicians over the time period.Although unlikely based upon trend analysis, if more or less osteopathic physicians published in these years not surveyed, it may have altered the results. Also, several authors were listed as “unknown” due to no degree being established with their authorship.While we made every effort to remove all “Letters to the Editor,” during the early years several of the journals did not clearly note these publications as such. All efforts were made to remove these from the study by review of the abstracts when available. Lastly, several journals publish brief reports, case reports and clinical images in the “Letters to the Editor” section. These were not included in the totals due to publication status in the “Letters” section, and it was felt that little change would be present in the results because of this.JEM, AEM and Annals. Over the years studied, we saw no trend for increased publication by either the osteopathic first author or osteopathic senior author for the journals studied. As compared to their allopathic counterparts, very few osteopathic first or senior authors hold an advanced degree.Over the last two decades, very few osteopathic physicians published original research articles, review articles, case reports, or image reports in


We are in the midst of a sea change in the process of publishing scientific findings and making them directly accessible to a wide audience. It is a huge waste of research funds and time if public funded research is not published, read and acted upon. We, as researchers, give careful thought to when and where to publish our results and interpretations. We take into consideration where our results will be seen by our peers, and thus potentially be cited, and whether we wish to reach a broad or more specialised audience. Funding bodies and governments are increasingly making it a requirement that the work they fund can be accessed and read by the widest possible audience. Unrestricted access to the published outputs of research is fast becoming the expected norm.Many scientists are broadly in agreement with the idea of open access. But, and most importantly, our funding and careers critically depend on where our results get published. We need to maximise the impact and citations of our scientific contributions. The funding bodies demand that the output of their funded research is published in high-quality and peer-reviewed journals.After the investment of considerable time and resources, we have the expectation that, often after a lengthy and sometimes frustrating process, the outcome of our carefully designed experiments will ultimately be accepted for publication. In addition, we envisage that it will have some influence on our colleagues' work and thinking, thereby advancing scientific progress. Picking the right journal has never been easy, and the appearance on the scene of open access journals with less upright reputations (1), together with the pressure from funders to make our studies open access, has not made this task simpler.Despite all the work authors put into ensure good quality data and meaningful presentation and discussion, the contribution of editors and independent reviewers remains critical to ensure quality and methodological rigour. The fundamental scientific method of questioning results and discussing their interpretation ensures quality, improves impact and should facilitate progress. Although often criticised and with some inherent problems, this process of anonymous reviewing is the best we have. However, many manuscripts will not be accepted even after all this effort on the part of the authors and expert reviewers. This seems a waste of the time and effort of all involved. This is especially the case when reasons for rejection are as yet limited mechanistic insight or an insufficiently fashionable subject, or where precedence is given to novel studies over those containing solid experiments or clinical studies which strengthen previously published work. The original, independently made, observations themselves are certainly worthy of publication and discussion to further undertakings of others and to strengthen or undermine current theories.Open access can put a strain on the system of peer review and scientific quality if not well managed. One might think, for instance, that it would be in a journal's interest to accept as many papers as possible, generating a stream of revenue. This would be a misconception; reputation and impact, key indicators of quality and thus success, would be lost. The new journals do not initially have the established indicator of quality, the somewhat controversial impact factor. Therefore, the model of open access publishing needs to be built upon quality, trust and transparency. Our journal depends critically on support from, and collaboration with, authoritative societies and other journals within its targeted readership, as well as on internationally renowned expert reviewers and editorial board members.Immunity, Inflammation and Disease to make a contribution towards quality open access scientific publishing, to stimulate debate and to make better use of the work of external reviewers. The journal is part of the respected Wiley Blackwell publishing house, making full use of its experience with quality peer reviewed scientific publishing. All research articles published in Wiley Open Access journals are immediately freely available to read, download and share. Importantly, Immunity, Inflammation and Disease is published in collaboration with the European Federation of Immunological Societies (EFIS), and the British Society for Immunology (BSI). It will give rapid consideration to manuscripts in all areas of clinical and basic immunology research for the attention of a broad readership in basic and applied immunology. We welcome original work that enhances understanding in the field of immunology, including methods papers, editorials, discussions and commentaries. Importantly, original research manuscripts need to report well-conducted experiments with conclusions that are supported by the data presented. In addition, Immunity, Inflammation and Disease will consider for publication both papers submitted directly to the journal and those referred from a select group of prestigious journals published by Wiley Blackwell. List available here.It is my hope and goal with All submitted manuscripts will undergo external peer review, or in case of referral are submitted with the original reviewer's comments. The latter enables us to make full use of the efforts already made by external reviewers and to make efficient use of their work and time as well as the authors' contribution, in energy, time and funds, to address the initial concerns. As an open access online journal there are no space constraints or demands, and short papers focussing on an initial novel observation or principle are highly encouraged. In addition, room for additional but focussed discussion to develop ideas further and to inspire others will be permitted. It is important that the data shown are correct with the methods used and available at the time, but the interpretation is allowed to be open for scientific discussion and debate. However, the absence of restraints on space does not imply that numerous supplementary figures should be submitted. Those included should substantiate primary figures , should be directly related to a primary figure and should not outnumber the quantity of primary figures.The process of anonymous external review will be conducted within two weeks and an editorial decision will be made within four to five weeks of submission, providing a rapid turnaround time. Importantly, additional experiments requested by external reviewers should be able to be conducted within a time frame of three months and need to be solely designed to strengthen or refute a fundamental claim made in the manuscript. Upon resubmission, the manuscript will be either accepted or rejected. Authors and external reviewers do not need to agree, but fundamental disagreements need to be highlighted in the discussion by the authors before final acceptance of the manuscript. This allows for the reader to have a better informed view of the data and its interpretation, and possibly to contribute to the discussion themselves with new data or arguments, and it enables the discussion or points of dispute to be cited in future publications. Transparency is very important and the publisher and I will regularly review and publish rejection and acceptance rates, times to online publication and other relevant information on the website.Immunity, Inflammation and Disease into a high quality journal publishing new and original data, to allow for novel data to be a bit rough around the edges, and to encourage strongly the preservation of the original scientific method of open discussion and frank exchange of thoughts and ideas.My aims are to shape


Fertility Research and Practice offers a new open access, peer-reviewed venue for quality clinical, basic science and translational studies and scholarly reviews in human fertility, infertility and early pregnancy. The journal specifically encourages works from international contributors and from investigators in less-resourced environments and has gathered an editorial board with a breadth of geographic representation to support this mission.The study of human fertility has expanded dramatically since the birth of IVF and with it, the body of literature. That said, the availability of open access publication in the field remains somewhat limited.  Fertility Research and Practice. We hope that readers enjoy this new, relevant addition to the medical literature and welcome submissions.Together with Biomed Central, Drs. Elizabeth S. Ginsburg and Danny J. Schust are pleased to announce the launch of a new peer reviewed open-access online journal entitled Fertility Research and Practice has many. We understand that the experiences and interests of basic science and clinical researchers, medical and paramedical practitioners and thought leaders from all regions of the world have the potential to instruct and impact healthcare locally and more broadly. We therefore encourage a wide diversity of submissions.In an era notable for rapid expansion in the choices an investigator, clinician and author has available for publication of a particular manuscript, it is important to distinguish a new entry by its unique characteristics, and Fertility Research and Practice includes male and female fertility and early pregnancy. While our focus is on human work, we appreciate that much of what we know about humans was first learned through the study of animal models and/or through in vitro modeling, so we also welcome experimental work with translational applications. We welcome basic science, translational, clinical and epidemiological studies that may be presented as traditional data-based manuscripts, brief reports, reviews and commentaries, case reports and case series. Fertility Research and Practice also has the capability to accept video submissions. Our interests in fertility and early pregnancy are also broad, diverse and inclusive. Among our many areas of interest are the diagnosis and correction of endometriosis and congenital and acquired anomalies of the male and female reproductive tracts. We have additional interests in reproductive infectious diseases, male and female fertility diagnostics (including imaging) and assisted reproductive techniques, including embryology. Unlike some fertility journals, our scope has a specific emphasis on early pregnancy, including implantation, and diagnosis and treatment of pregnancies of unknown location and sporadic and recurrent early pregnancy loss. We have a particular interest in the effects of environmental exposures on fertility and early pregnancy and on epidemiology and welcome novel and cutting-edge diagnostic and therapeutic approaches. Drs. Ginsburg and Schust have been fortunate to have assembled a very skilled and respected group of international scholars on their editorial board whose expertise covers the breadth and depth of Fertility Research and Practice’s scope of interest.The scope of First and foremost, we are an open access journal whose mission includes wide distribution without geographic or cost barriers. As an open access journal, authors are requested to contribute to publication costs, an unavoidable mandate of the open access business model that is rapidly expanding into non-open access journals as well. To satisfy this financial business mandate while encouraging the greatest possible geographic and economic diversity among submitted and published manuscripts, however, BioMed Central has a policy of reducing or waiving publication fees for submissions from less developed/less resourced authors and institutions. This integral part of their business plan makes publication in a BioMed Central Journal such as Fertility Research and Practice an option for all authors and from institutions of all sizes.Fertility Research and Practice by the demanding standards of BioMed Central [Fertility Research and Practice are committed to reducing such inconsistencies in our own published articles and will help the initiative in creating recommendations when they apply to our scope.BioMed Central has an illustrious history in the open-access publication field and is committed to rapid and supportive review , widespread distribution not limited by mail access or library subscription, and access to readers without cost. Open access publication benefits authors by increasing access and readership when compared to subscription-based publication , 3. OpenFertility Research and Practice, we present four articles that exemplify the breadth of our scope of interest. Two of the inaugural articles address surgical issues within reproductive medicine. Brady and Styer [In the inaugural edition of nd Styer  provide nd Styer  report ond Styer  assess cnd Styer  reports Fertility Research and Practice. We welcome your submissions.Please enjoy the launch edition of


In the era of “big science”, all researchers, academics and students are under pressure to publish more and to report more research activities for successful grant applications, academic promotion, and course graduation. To meet the ever-increasing publication activities, thousands of new publishers have sprung up globally, and the number of online and subscription journals has increased exponentially. At the same time, temptation to publish more at all costs has led to epidemics of unethical conduct and inevitable retractions, which question the validity of current evidence-base . ReasonsLarge amount of funding for research, publishing and archiving activities comes from pharmaceutical agencies, supporting individuals and their research and academic institutions. Too often, pharmaceutical agencies hire medical writers and professional experts for writing research reports and guidelines on drugs and medical technologies produced or promoted by the agencies. Informing readership about relationships between authors and pharmaceutical agencies is an ethical obligation, which should be regarded for the sake of transparency and safety of patients ,4. Non-dGlobal editorial associations keep a close eye on research and publication misconduct. For example, the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) has a collection of appalling cases of misconduct, which may help avoid similar cases by improving awareness among young and seasoned researchers, authors, reviewers, and editors . ResponsResearch misconduct may take a variety of forms, which can be minor or major. The U.S. National Science Foundation distinguished the following types of research misconduct: fabrication (reporting made-up results), falsification , and plagiarism (utilizing someone else’s text or ideas without appropriate crediting) ,9. PerhaScience, Nature, Cell, and others primarily suffer from fraudulent and unethical publications, eventually subjected to retractions [Current “obsession” with impact factors and individual impact indicators has led to the urge to produce more “groundbreaking” research data and target high-ranking scholarly journals. Authors, who publish in high-impact periodicals, are likely to attract more citations and secure more funding from grant holders. The wealthiest research grant providers prioritize widely-visible and most-impacting publications, thus forcing researchers and their institutions to publish more in top journals Figure . As a reractions .h-index, which is universally applicable for evaluating publication activity and citability of individuals, academic departments, institutions, and countries. Its bi-dimensional origin is well fitted with the concept of publishing citable papers useful for the scientific community.At the other extreme, authors, who wish to build up their academic profile and publish at all costs, may be tempted to circumvent the mainstream journals with tough peer review and to submit their manuscripts to the so-called predatory journals with no quality control or soft, decorative peer review Figure . The maiAuthors should be aware of functional characteristics of online search platforms, bibliographic databases, and archiving hubs. Open-access publishing provides opportunities for rapid dissemination of scholarly information. However, not all online journals are indexed in evidence-based databases and are capable of properly archiving papers. Biomedical authors, who wish to address readership, interested in reading and citing their papers, should target MEDLINE-indexed journals in the first place. Publishing in journals indexed in MEDLINE and simultaneously archived in PubMed Central is an added value as the latter is an ideal platform for open-access publishing models and permanent conservation of scholarly information. Papers archived in PubMed Central can be retrieved from PubMed and Web of Knowledge search platforms. However, journal visibility in these platforms differs from indexing in MEDLINE and Web of Science bibliographic databases. Publishers should explicitly inform potential authors about correct indexing and archiving status of their journals and avoid manipulating and charging for non-indexed publications.Exploring options for disseminating scientific ideas in an ethical and well-informed academic environment is a big issue for both researchers and publishers . ObviousMohammad Abdollahi (MA) is the Editor-in-Chief of DARU and chose the topic to be written based on his editorial experiences. MA is a Trustee Council Member of Committee on Publication Ethics  and the views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the COPE. Armen Yuri Gasparyan is the Chief Editor of European Science Editing and a Council Member of the European Association of Science Editors  and the views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of the EASE.All authors contributed equally. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.