Peer review practices differ substantially between journals and disciplines. This study presents the results of a survey of 322 editors of journals in ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology. We found that 49% of the journals surveyed checked all manuscripts for plagiarism, that 61% allowed authors to recommend both for and against specific reviewers, and that less than 6% used a form of open peer review. Most journals did not have an official policy on altering reports from reviewers, but 91% of editors identified at least one situation in which it was appropriate for an editor to alter a report. Editors were also asked for their views on five issues related to publication ethics. A majority expressed support for co-reviewing, reviewers requesting access to data, reviewers recommending citations to their work, editors publishing in their own journals, and replication studies. Our results provide a window into what is largely an opaque aspect of the scientific process. We hope the findings will inform the debate about the role and transparency of peer review in scholarly publishing. Almost all scientists who pursue publication of their research via academic journals will be familiar with the scrutiny of their work by their peers. This process of journal-organised, pre-publication evaluation to guide editorial decision-making, commonly referred to as ‘peer review’, is a standard procedure currently employed by over 65,000 English-language journals . HoweverPeer review comes in many forms, with each journal adopting their own unique set of policies governing aspects of the process such as: the amount and range of expertise solicited, the level of anonymity afforded, the availability of documentation to reviewers and the readership and the degree of interaction between stakeholders. Given the role peer review ostensibly plays in quality control, and the diversity of models currently in use, understanding what peer review is, and what it does, is considered a high priority .Despite its diverse, and customarily closed nature, peer review continues to be widely perceived as a valuable endeavour that adds credibility to scholarship by both researchers  and the The Lancet and The New England Journal of Medicine that reported on the utility of chloroquine treatments for COVID-19  were invited to participate in this study, which involved two surveys. The first survey (Survey A) contained questions about peer review policies and practices; the second survey (Survey B) covered five issues related to publication ethics . In the 13.5 weeks between invitation and deactivation, 336 unique editors entered Survey A, of which 332 consented to participate. Of the 332 journal editors that consented, 300 completed the survey, 22 started but didn’t finish, eight opened the survey but provided no responses and two withdrew consent following completion, giving an overall response rate of 21% (322/1500). Following completion of Survey A, 233 (78%) entered and finished Survey B.Of the 322 editors who provided at least one response to Survey A, 293 (91%) identified themselves as the incoming or outgoing lead editor. The target response rate of 17% (N = 50) was achieved in the ecology (N = 90), psychology (N = 84) and economics (N = 80) groups, but not in the medicine (N = 40) or physics (N = 28) groups . The disall incoming manuscripts for plagiarism , few reported encouraging dialogue between fellow reviewers  and authors and reviewers . As to blinding procedures see , we noteLastly, 24 (8%) and 19 (6%) editors reported that their journal accepts Registered Reports or uses results-free review respectively i.e. uses ‘results-blind’ review . Registepublic sharing of peer review documentation remains rare, most editors did report that both reviewer reports  and editorial decision letters  were shared with all reviewers.Only four editors (1%) reported publishing reviewer reports (signed or unsigned) and decision letters. However, while Editors were also asked whether an editor at their journal would ‘be permitted to edit a reviewer's report’ under certain circumstances, and the process they would follow in that case. While most editors stated that their journal didn’t have an official policy on editing reports , 276 (91%) identified at least one situation where editors at their journal would be permitted to alter a reviewer’s report with or without the reviewer’s permission  personally encouraged co-reviewing, 70 (34%) reported that it is an acceptable practice at their journal, and 4 (2%) responded that they would allow it despite personally discouraging the practice. Of the editors who expressed support for co-reviewing, one in three added that they think it is a good way to develop the next generation of reviewers. The belief that co-reviewing results in a better review and helps connect journals with future reviewers and editors were also cited as reasons to support the practice. In contrast, editors who discouraged the practice, expressed disinterest in the written opinions of reviewers they did not solicit themselves, as well as concerns about decreased review quality and efficiency.While endorsement of co-reviewing was high, editors often qualified the need to disclose the practice to ensure co-reviewers are credited for their work, as well as to assess potential conflicts. Oversight over the process by the editor-invited reviewer, as well as ensuring adherence to confidentiality and conflicts of interest policies were also strongly emphasised. Concerns around breaches of these same themes were cited by editors as reasons to discourage the practice. The following statements capture common sentiments and caveats concisely:“We do it, and I think it is important training. We emphasize that the ultimate responsibility is with the mentor, that all COI policies apply to the mentor and the student, and that confidentiality extends no further than one student with the invited reviewer.” .“I believe this is an incredibly valuable process, providing that it is true "co-writing" and not just getting people to do your work and taking credit for it. This is a great way to train learners in how to properly review, something that is not done enough.” .“… I feel this would violate confidentiality and open submitters to the risk of leaking their manuscript or parts of their submission that the authors might find problematic. Also, we ask for the reviewer's expertise purposefully. This is not intended to be a pedagogic exercise.” .Fewer than 5% of editors overall objected to reviewers suggesting citations of their own work. In fact, a common view was that this should be expected given invited reviewers have likely done relevant work. Despite few objections to this practice, respondents expressed the need for editors to stay vigilant and arbitrate cases. For example, editors were often described as responsible for ensuring that recommended citations are relevant, address significant gaps or mischaracterisations, and display balance or restraint (often to prevent unblinding of reviewers). A common view was that editors should ultimately leave it to authors to determine whether to cite the suggested paper or not. Interestingly, three editors also stated that gratuitous requests would be grounds for editing a report. The following statements touch upon many of these themes:“… We invite people to review because they are subject matter experts, and because they are experts, they have often done relevant work. However, when a reviewer does nothing but add citations of their own work, that is clearly inappropriate. We often state in the decision letter that it is not necessary to cite all requested references … or, because all our reviewers are aware that we may edit their comments, we will take requests for inappropriate citations out of decision letters when excessive. …” .“This is borderline, and acceptable only when this is relevant to the paper. This is a case for editing the review” .“Yes. But only if their work is so significant on the topic that to leave it out would be a significant indication of a large scholarly oversight. I do dislike this practice and often discontinue the use of the reviewer if the suggestions are not germane or if it happens consistently.” .in principle support, some also conceded that respecting data protections would need to be prioritised. Some editors expressed that while they would attempt to circumnavigate confidentiality issues by offering investigation through an independent intermediary, disclosure would ultimately be left at the authors’ discretion. Consequently, few editors outside those of journals adopting mandatory data sharing policies stated that manuscript acceptance would be contingent on sharing. Some of these views were captured in the following responses:Of the 210 editors that provided codable views, 200 (95%) stated that they would support and mediate a request from a reviewer to access a manuscript’s raw data if they felt it was needed. This high level of support was noted to be consistent across all disciplines. However, of these respondents, approximately one in six added that they would need a compelling reason to do so, such as if credible ethical or quality concerns were raised. Furthermore, despite the high levels of “Absolutely. But I've also indicated that this is at the authors' discretion and have also conveyed any problems with Human Ethics in sharing a data set when that has been an issue. Both parties must agree to confidentiality to avoid leaking if the author does not or cannot provide a full data set for public view.” .“I would definitely support and mediate the request of reviewer to see raw data. The goal of an editor is to publish solid and reproducible science and we have to help reviewers provide a fair and unbiased review based on the scientific results.” .“I definitely would support a request from a peer reviewer to see a manuscript's raw data if they feel it's necessary. Acquisition, processing and  evaluation of data in ecology is often complex, and the reviewer can assess the validity of data interpretation sometimes only when seeing original data and experimental design.” .When asked how often an editor should publish their own original articles in a journal they edit, 176 (79%) editors described a scenario where they thought it would be acceptable for any editor to do so. A smaller proportion of respondents stated that this would not be acceptable for the lead editor , or for any editor . Once again, support was often qualified with prerequisites, most commonly processes to protect against conflicts of interest. Suggested processes included: independent editing and reviewing, preventing the submitting editor knowing the identities of the handling editor and reviewers (and vice-versa), and providing a statement declaring the handling editor’s identity on the final article.Interestingly, views on how often an editor should submit research were more polarised among respondents, with one group expressing that it should not be restricted, and another suggesting that manuscripts should only be submitted rarely. However, despite these opposing views on frequency, there was a strong sentiment around the lack of fairness associated with preventing editors publishing in their journals among both groups. Many respondents discussed the negative consequences, such as: shutting out potentially desirable content, restricting publication venues for collaborators and deterring researchers taking on editorial roles. In contrast, many editors stated that publishing in one’s journals demonstrates a commitment to it. These beliefs were captured well in the following statements:“As often as the work meets the standard. … Telling people that they cannot publish in it lowers the value of what is a thankless task for which we aren't adequately compensated anyway.” .“Whenever the subject matter is appropriate. It is crazy to shut off an excellent journal from an excellent researcher when they put a lot of their own time and effort into ensuring the journal succeeds. It is easy to set up a process whereby that editor never sees their own work, or reviews, or reviewer identity - or even handling editor identity, so that the process can be independent and not influenced by the author/editor.” .“Not often. … I have been reluctant to send my work to the journal even if a former editor were to decision it. However, I may consider sending a paper or two in my [next] term. I have published many papers in my journal prior to becoming editor so I have proven that I can do it. Thus, perhaps it is not fair on myself to limit where I can publish. It can also be damaging to the journal to the extent that the work is very much suited for the [readership]. But in all cases, it must be done within reason and very carefully …” .“Not very often. In [my country], though, there are not so many (recognized) outlets for economists, while there is a need for decent local work to be done. Thus, I do publish an article here and there. I have absolutely no access to the article while it is under review; so, at least in principle, I cannot influence its 'passage' through the system.” .When asked their views on direct replication studies (i.e. research that follows the methods of another study as closely as possible), of the 183 editors that provided a clear stance, 86% stated that they support the practice or allow replication studies to be submitted to their journals. However, while respondents often perceived direct replications as an important and informative line of research, many also stressed the need for replication studies to be accompanied by novel work or offer new insights as a condition for publication, with the discovery of findings contradicting or undermining the original study being preferable for some. Similarly, the importance of the original study, as well as the number of existing replication attempts were also highlighted as important factors influencing the likelihood of acceptance of direct replication studies.In contrast, the few editors who discouraged, or were ambivalent towards replication studies tended not to explain why they held these beliefs. When reasons were given, they most often related to perceived lack of interest from the readership, concerns surrounding potential agendas by researchers, and non-compliance with their journal’s scope for novel material. Consequently, many editors encouraged submission of research deliberately altering elements of the original study to test hypotheses in a new way, or to test generalisability of results in other settings i.e. ‘conceptual’ replication. The range of difficult considerations contributing to editors’ perceptions of replication studies are illustrated in the following statements:“I am very conflicted about this. It is important to get to the truth, but there are so many reasons an experiment might not work, and many of them have nothing to do with truth. And, frankly, as an editor, I am completely uninterested in publishing replication studies. No one will read the journal. So this is a very tough issue. I guess I'm more in favor of people attacking the same question from different angles to get at the truth, rather than attempting to perform precise replication. It is also really critical that those performing the replication studies do so ingenuously, and not with an agenda to disprove the original, or any intellectual conflict of interest. I find this is rarely the case - agendas are rife in replication work. …” .“Replication studies using new data are extremely valuable. Whether it would be published in my journal would depend on the perceived value of the study being replicated, the scope and quality of the analysis and whether the replication supports the existing finding. …” .“A direct, close replication is interesting and worthwhile. A journal has no particular duty to publish these – I reject the 'Pottery Barn Rule'. But if they're interesting, informative and well-done, why wouldn't a journal want to publish them?” .“Replication studies are essential as one of the points of scientific research is to be able replicate the results of other research. An inability to replicate a study should make us question the results of that study. Journals like [redacted] have a section devoted to Replication Studies with an Editor in charge of these studies. This is best practice as far as I am concerned.” .Lastly, when asked if they would change anything about how their journal conducts peer review, of the 196 editors who responded, only 35% indicated that they were satisfied with the current system. The remaining two-thirds discussed changes they were contemplating, implementing or had implemented recently. The most frequently mentioned changes included: modifying the blinding system (most often increasing anonymity); improving how the journal finds reviewers; and improving the overall efficiency of the process. Another common theme was incentives and rewards for reviewers: the ideas put forward included remuneration, acknowledgment via Publons, the waiving of article processing charges, and professional development credits.Innovation adoption is a complex and active process that regularly begins with the recognition of a need, or opportunities to improve processes . When coAt times, these needs and opportunities aligned. For example, co-reviewing was commonly endorsed because it presented as an opportunity to connect with and train the next generation of reviewers. However, at other times they were noted to be in conflict, stifling potential change. For example, of the editors who supported reviewers requesting access to data, many were also conflicted about making acceptance contingent upon sharing. Reluctance among editors to dictate such terms to authors may also help explain the low uptake of mandatory data sharing policies observed in both the current and previous research . HoweverA further example included the conflict between an editor’s desire to increase transparency and the fear of alienating reviewers. With regards to increasing transparency through the adoption of open peer review policies, there is evidence to substantiate such fears . For exaPrevious research has also reported that three quarters of editors consider finding reviewers the most difficult part of their job, a task which is projected to become more difficult in the future . Given tDespite the low popularity of unblinded models, previous research has noted increasing adoption of policies that allow authors and reviewers greater flexibility in deciding whether to disclose their identity or not during peer review . For exaScience  is also consistent with a survey of 146 editors and publishers recently released by the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) (86%) . Many ofScience .When considering the notion of editors altering reviews, one could argue that fixing spelling and grammatical errors is benign, or even a necessary copy-editing step prior to publication of reviews. Editors’ preference to tone down potentially offensive or discriminatory remarks is also comprehendible, particularly given current pressures to retain reviewers, the non-trivial rate of unprofessional reviews and their potential negative impact on authors’ productivity and wellbeing . This coIt is also particularly concerning, given such practices would be undetectable in journals that do not publish reviews or share complete decision letters with reviewers. Of note, 15% of the editors surveyed in the current study and 50% of editors surveyed by Horbach and Halffman reported that their journals do not share decision letters with reviewers . Ultimathow editors use author-recommended reviewers, as well as nuances in policies, such as mixed policies that mandate data sharing for some study designs  or research outputs , but not others, were outside of the scope of the study. Lastly, the survey represents a snapshot of journal policies across a three-month period in 2019. Consequently, recognising that journal policies change with time and new leadership, the policy landscape could shift substantially through time.The current study explored a series of peer review policies across a range of scientific disciplines. The survey achieved a high overall response rate (21%) compared to past survey efforts (4–6%) , as wellDue to its closed nature, peer review continues to be difficult to examine. Our study sheds light on what peer review policies and practices are currently being used by journals in ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology, and gauges editor attitudes on some topical publication ethics issues. It highlights the tension between maintaining and growing the reviewer pool, an integral part of an editor’s role, and engaging in more open practices, such as open peer review. It also draws attention to the ethics of editors altering reviewers’ reports. We hope that the data presented in this study will stimulate further discussion about the role of peer review in scholarly publishing, catalyse future research and contribute to guideline development efforts and policymaking, particularly those concerning transparency in editorial and publishing policy.The Journal of Comparative Psychology was removed from the ecology list) and then replaced with the next entry. The list of categories used in InCites to define disciplines can be found in Clarivate Analytics' InCites Journal Citation Reports  was used to identify journals within five broad fields of interest to members of the authorship team, specifically: ecology, economics, medicine, physics and psychology. Lists of journals sorted by 2017 Journal Impact Factor were generated for each discipline on April 9th, 2019. Journals flagged as duplicate entries across disciplinary lists were subjectively removed from the less subject-appropriate list  were invited to participate (assuming an expected response rate of between 15–20% ). TherefThe lead editor for each of the 1500 journals was identified via the journal’s website, and contact emails obtained via a reliable source e.g. journals’ and academic institutions’ websites or recent publications. In the event that the same individual was found to edit multiple journals (duplicate editor) a co-lead editor or deputy editor was invited if available, or the editor was contacted by email and asked whether they would complete the survey on behalf of each of the journals they edit. As indicated above, in the final sample eight editors represented more than one journal.Two separate surveys were created for this study. The first (Survey A) aimed to characterise journals’ peer review policies and practices as understood and reported by a member of the journal’s editorial team. The second (Survey B) was designed to capture editors’ opinions on five current peer review and publication ethics issues. For Survey A, participants were informed prior to commencing that information on routine peer review policies and practices were going to be collected, and provided consent allowing the study team to link responses back to the journal. For Survey B, participants were informed that all statements would be kept anonymous. Participants provided consent prior to beginning each survey. All questions for both surveys can be found in Qualtrics Solutions’ Online Survey Software  was used to create and distribute the two surveys. Email invitations housing a personalised link to Survey A were generated and sent to all editors between June 26th and July 18th, 2019. Participants who completed Survey A were automatically redirected to the anonymous Survey B. Throughout the course of the project, three reminder emails were sent in July, August and September 2019 to editors who had not started (and not opted-out of future email reminders), or not completed Survey A. Both surveys were deactivated, and all responses recorded on October 1 st, 2019.Descriptive statistics were used to analyse answers to multiple choice survey questions in R . Missing responses were omitted from the proportions reported in the results section. The full breakdown of Survey A responses by discipline can be seen in Responses to the open-ended questions in Survey B were analysed in NVivo . An inductive (data-driven) approach was used to develop analytic categories (codebooks) for qualitative analysis. Preliminary codebooks for each question in Survey B were drafted by one author (DGH) after carefully reading and re-reading all responses to identify emergent themes. This process was repeated until all emergent themes relevant to the research question were captured and analytic categories could not be further refined. All codebooks were then pilot tested on six randomly selected responses by two coders  for calibration purposes. Following further discussion and refinement, codebooks were then repeatedly tested on 35 (15%) randomly selected responses by the same two coders  until sufficient inter-coder reliability was obtained.For the purposes of this study, a codebook was considered stable once an overall unweighted kappa coefficient greater than 0.70, and average percentage agreement greater than 95% was achieved. Codebooks that did not satisfy these criteria after a round of testing were discussed and refined prior to being re-tested. The summarised results of the reliability analysis can be found in  In the interests of transparency, eLife publishes the most substantive revision requests and the accompanying author responses.eLife for consideration as a Feature Article. Your article has been reviewed by three peer reviewers, including the eLife Features Editor Peter Rodgers. The reviewers have discussed the reviews and have drafted this decision letter to help you prepare a revised submission.Thank you for submitting your article "Meta-Research: Journal policies and editors' opinions on peer review" to The following individuals involved in review of your submission have agreed to reveal their identity: Liz Allen (Reviewer #1); Tony Ross-Hellauer (Reviewer #2).Summary:Reviewer #1: This is an interesting descriptive analysis of journal editors' views – albeit, as the authors acknowledge, a snapshot at a time when there are many changes afoot across scholarly publishing. The discussion of how Editors are thinking about the policies and practice around, for example open data, publishing replication studies, and open peer review, are timely and relevant topics with implications for meta-research more generally. There is also a dearth of evidence around aspects of the publishing process and particularly the “black box” that is peer review. However, there are also a number of points that need to be addressed to make the article suitable for publication.Essential revisions:1) In terms of the sampling, I wasn't sure why the particular mix of journal subject areas was picked (was this important? why pick these?). It is also not clear why the focus on “high impact journals” is important as part of the sampling frame; the authors do not explain why this was the selection strategy – is it perhaps based upon an assumption that these would be more established journals therefore would have established policies/substantial experience? Or another reason?2) Did you distinguish between open-access (OA) journals and non-OA journals? If yes, please discuss what you found. If no, please mention this in the section on the limitations of the survey as the issue of OA vs non-OA journals may influence the views of editors on some of the topics covered in the survey.3) Did you distinguish between journals edited by academic editors and those edited by professional editors? If yes, please discuss what you found. If no, please mention this in the section on the limitations of the survey. The issue of academic vs professional editors may influence some of your findings because, for example, one might expect professional editors to be more familiar with journal policies on data etc, and also to have more time to implement/police these policies.4) Section on "Reviewers requesting access to raw data".Do you know how many of the journals in your sample mandate data sharing?Also, there have been a lot of articles about researchers not being able to get data from published authors, even for papers published in journals that mandate data sharing, and it would be good to cite and discuss some of these articles in the Discussion, and also to mention that more and more funders are insisting on open data. .5) The practice of editors editing reports when they disagree with the recommendation needs to be discussed further – even if it is only to say something along the lines that it is not clear if this involved deleting comments like "I support publication" or "I oppose publication", or if it was more extensive, and that unfortunately there were no open responses on this topic.Also, please clarify what the figures (8-62%) refer to.6) The authors could have perhaps included some more explicit recommendations for further analysis and even policy and practice.7) Figure 1: Please replace Figure 1 with a table A6 from Supplementary file 3. Essential revisions:1) In terms of the sampling, I wasn't sure why the particular mix of journal subject areas was picked (was this important? why pick these?).Thank you very much for the comments. To address the first point, the journal subject areas were chosen primarily as each one relates to a member of the authorship team’s fields of interest . Furthermore, the authors felt that these fields would suffice for the purposes of the study as they also have the benefit of representing a broad area of scientific disciplines. For example, the five chosen areas cover each of the five main fields of science as used in the CWTS Leiden Ranking, namely: Social Science & Humanities , Biomedical & Health Sciences (Medicine), Physical Sciences & Engineering (Physics), Life & Earth Science (Ecology) and Mathematics & Computer Sciences (Physics). Some text has been added into the Materials and methods section to clarify this to prospective readers.It is also not clear why the focus on “high impact journals” is important as part of the sampling frame; the authors do not explain why this was the selection strategy – is it perhaps based upon an assumption that these would be more established journals therefore would have established policies/substantial experience? Or another reason?visibility” of journals within a field . Consequently, given that manually assembling and extracting contact information from all journals within a specific field was not feasible, and our overall aim to survey journals that are well-known to researchers within a particular field, we decided that limiting the scope to popular journals indexed in the Web of Science would be a defensible sampling strategy. Some further text has been added to the Materials and methods section to explain this decision (paragraph two).The decision to limit the focus to the 300 journals with the highest impact factor in each discipline was largely done for reasons of convenience. From a bibliometric point of view, Clarivate Analytics’ “impact factors” are arguably the most commonly used and well-known impact measure in academia. They are also a simple metric to access and interpret. Furthermore, we are the first to acknowledge that we do not believe impact factors are a surrogate for journal quality . However, we do acknowledge that there is evidence to suggest that they can provide some useful information on the degree of “2) Did you distinguish between open-access (OA) journals and non-OA journals? If yes, please discuss what you found. If no, please mention this in the section on the limitations of the survey as the issue of OA vs non-OA journals may influence the views of editors on some of the topics covered in the survey.This is another valid point. Unfortunately, we did not collect this information and so list this as a limitation in the Discussion section (paragraph nine).3) Did you distinguish between journals edited by academic editors and those edited by professional editors? If yes, please discuss what you found. If no, please mention this in the section on the limitations of the survey. The issue of academic vs professional editors may influence some of your findings because, for example, one might expect professional editors to be more familiar with journal policies on data etc, and also to have more time to implement/police these policies.As above, this is another piece of information we overlooked. A sentence has been added into the limitations to point this out (paragraph nine).4) Section on "Reviewers requesting access to raw data".Do you know how many of the journals in your sample mandate data sharing?Also, there have been a lot of articles about researchers not being able to get data from published authors, even for papers published in journals that mandate data sharing, and it would be good to cite and discuss some of these articles in the Discussion, and also to mention that more and more funders are insisting on open data. .Information on how many of the participating journals mandate deposition of data into an external repository is reported in Table 4. The breakdown of these numbers by discipline is also available in Supplementary file 4 (A13D). This is an area of interest to the first author and will be the subject of future research. Some text has been added to contextualise these findings with respect to some of the studies raised in the reviewer’s comment.5) The practice of editors editing reports when they disagree with the recommendation needs to be discussed further – even if it is only to say something along the lines that it is not clear if this involved deleting comments like "I support publication" or "I oppose publication", or if it was more extensive, and that unfortunately there were no open responses on this topic.Science that covered the story in more detail. (Discussion paragraph six).Another good point. Unfortunately, due to the design of the survey we are unable to clarify exactly what changes editors had in mind when they answered this question. It is plausible that the question may have been interpreted as changing small elements of the report if the editor disagreed with the recommendation, all the way up to switching a recommendation from “accept” to “reject”, or vice-versa. Consequently, making strong conclusions about likely behaviours from these results would be inappropriate. As advised, some text has been added to highlight possible differences in interpretation of the question. Furthermore, some text has been added to share two of the authors’ previous experience of uncovering an altered recommendation, as well as a link to a recent article in Also, please clarify what the figures (8-62%) refer to.These figures are derived from Table 3. They communicate the findings that, depending on the situation, the proportion of editors that stated they would alter a reviewer's report without their permission in this study ranged from 8% (if they disagreed with the recommendation) to 62% (if comments for editor were left in the report). This sentence has been amended slightly to improve the clarity.6) The authors could have perhaps included some more explicit recommendations for further analysis and even policy and practice.The authors had initially considered including some recommendations for the broader scientific community, however felt this would be inappropriate given the spirit of the study. We see this study as an attempt to improve understanding of the state and perceptions of peer review in order to stimulate further discussion about peer review, catalyse future research in the area, and importantly, pave the way for policy pieces by researchers who specialise in policymaking and guideline development. Some text has been added into the Conclusion to better highlight this position.7) Figure 1: Please replace Figure 1 with a table A6 from supplementary file 3.This has been amended as requested (refer to Table 2 in the revised document).


PLOS Biology is taking to support diversity, equity and inclusion at the journal and beyond.A diverse scientific community is not only fairer but also improves science overall by bringing a richer range of perspectives to the research enterprise. Here, we discuss steps that  There was a moment of reckoning last year after the release of a shocking video documenting the death of George Floyd, an unarmed Black man, at the hands of a white United States police officer. In response, people of conscience across the US and around the world took to the streets to demand an end to the systemic racism embedded in social institutions that perpetuate disparities from healthcare and housing to education and jobs—including those in science and medicine. The social movement that ensued, largely led by Black Lives Matter, also elicited reflection and acknowledgement of the racism and profound inequalities permeating the scientific enterprise. Scientific journals reflect the society they operate in—it’s thus no surprise that lack of access to opportunities has led to underrepresentation of women and ethnic minority scientists, from authors and peer reviewers to editors and publishers.PLOS, grappled with this question through editorials, blogs, and commentaries acknowledging structural racism and other inequalities and pledging to do better. Journals certainly have a part to play in fostering diversity and inclusion, but good intentions aren’t enough. As the New York Times noted in October, publishers for the most part lack diversity data on their contributors and reviewers or are only beginning to track it. The process for tracking diversity is not straightforward because privacy regulations, which differ between countries, can affect how race, ethnicity, and gender data are collected and stored. Yet journals can’t reliably increase diversity, equity, and inclusion without establishing a baseline to track progress. That’s why PLOS is committed to assessing the existing diversity of the contributors to our family of journals, starting with our Academic Editors but ultimately also including authors and reviewers. Having a benchmark measure will enable us to hold ourselves to account and monitor progress toward the goal of increasing the diversity of PLOS journals and their leadership. PLOS Biology, for example, has 8 professional editors, almost all of whom are white, and we recognize the limitations this inherently poses to our range of perspectives. In 2019, we made a targeted attempt to increase the female presence on the PLOS Biology editorial board, which currently stands at 42%, a percentage we plan to increase this year. We also aim to increase the board’s geographic, racial, and ethnic diversity, as well as recruit more researchers at earlier stages of their career. We are actively working to ensure a diversity of voices in our commissioned content and in our reviewer pool and routinely ask declining reviewers to keep diversity in mind when suggesting alternatives.Several bioscience and medical journals, including a new name change policy across the portfolio to honor those requests in order to prevent stigmatization and ensure that “the name on the paper reflects who authors are.” Changes to authorship in published articles are usually associated with the publication of a Correction Notice, but to protect the privacy of these authors and prevent further discrimination, no notice will be attached. The relevant articles will be “republished,” meaning that they will be fully replaced online and that their indexing metadata  should subsequently be updated accordingly. This replaces the author name fully while ensuring that citation information, such as the DOI, remains the same, and all previous citations to the paper remain valid.Science’s diversity problem doesn’t end with race and ethnicity. Transformative social change requires dismantling the biases and barriers that place all marginalized people and communities across the human experience at a disadvantage, from BIPOC to LGBTQ+. Improving diversity and inclusion requires addressing the needs of all research communities, which implies listening and understanding the obstacles they face. PLOS recently responded to concerns raised by transgender and nonbinary authors around changing their publishing record from the name they were given at birth, often referred to as a dead name, to their chosen name. In October, PLOS announced PLOS Biology vows to offer a platform to shed light on inequalities, racism, and other discrimination that minorities and/or marginalized populations grapple with. Toward that end, this issue features a Perspective by Leo Chan Gaskins and Craig McClain proposing a novel solution for transgender authors to change their published names [ed names  and an Eed names . As GaskPLOS Biology and PLOS Medicine are pioneering a collective action publishing model, PLOS Community Action Publishing (CAP). CAP is designed to protect authors from the rising costs of selectivity by equitably shifting publishing costs from authors to the institutions of both corresponding and contributing authors, and redistributing any revenue beyond the target back to community members. All Research4Life countries will automatically be members of the collective at no cost to them, so researchers in those countries will never be subject to fees, and authors based elsewhere and unable to pay nonmember fees can continue to apply to the fee waiver programs offered by PLOS. With this model, PLOS aims to ultimately completely eliminate author fees.Inclusivity in publishing also requires addressing the existing economic hurdles to publication and access to the published literature. To make selective open access more inclusive, equitable, and sustainable, Clearly, scientific journals cannot single-handedly reshape the deeply embedded social forces that perpetuate racism, discrimination, and inequality in science. But they can monitor the effects of lack of diversity in the scientific community and ensure that they don’t perpetuate inequities by actively reducing the overwhelming homogeneity of their staffs, editorial boards, authors, and reviewers. They can expose the many challenges marginalized groups continue to face and showcase recommendations and policies that lay out paths to meaningful change. Many scientists entered their fields with the hope of understanding the way the world works to make it a better place. It’s time for academics to leave the comfort of the ivory tower, recognize that the same conditions that helped them get there are keeping others out, and join efforts to open the door to academic advancement for all.


This article describes the motivation, design, and progress of the Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS). JOSS is a free and open-access journal that publishes articles describing research software. It has the dual goals of improving the quality of the software submitted and providing a mechanism for research software developers to receive credit. While designed to work within the current merit system of science, JOSS addresses the dearth of rewards for key contributions to science made in the form of software. JOSS publishes articles that encapsulate scholarship contained in the software itself, and its rigorous peer review targets the software components: functionality, documentation, tests, continuous integration, and the license. A JOSS article contains an abstract describing the purpose and functionality of the software, references, and a link to the software archive. The article is the entry point of a JOSS submission, which encompasses the full set of software artifacts. Submission and review proceed in the open, on GitHub. Editors, reviewers, and authors work collaboratively and openly. Unlike other journals, JOSS does not reject articles requiring major revision; while not yet accepted, articles remain visible and under review until the authors make adequate changes . Once an article is accepted, JOSS gives it a digital object identifier (DOI), deposits its metadata in Crossref, and the article can begin collecting citations on indexers like Google Scholar and other services. Authors retain copyright of their JOSS article, releasing it under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. In its first year, starting in May 2016, JOSS published 111 articles, with more than 40 additional articles under review. JOSS is a sponsored project of the nonprofit organization NumFOCUS and is an affiliate of the Open Source Initiative (OSI). Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS) was founded in May 2016 to offer a solution within the existing publishing mechanisms of science. It is a developer-friendly, free and open-access, peer-reviewed journal for research software packages. By its first anniversary, JOSS had published more than a hundred articles. This article discusses the motivation for creating a new software journal, delineates the editorial and review process, and summarizes the journal’s first year of operation via submission statistics. We expect this article to be of interest to three core audiences: (1) researchers who develop software and could submit their work to JOSS, (2) those in the community with an interest in advancing scholarly communications who may appreciate the technical details of the JOSS journal framework, and (3) those interested in possibilities for citing software in their own research publications.Modern scientific research produces many outputs beyond traditional articles and books. Among these, research software is critically important for a broad spectrum of fields. Current practices for publishing and citation do not, however, acknowledge software as a first-class research output. This deficiency means that researchers who develop software face critical career barriers. The JOSS Editorial Board at the end of its first year (May 2017). Arfon Smith is the founding editor-in-chief, and the founding editors are Lorena A. Barba, Kathryn Huff, Daniel Katz, Christopher Madan, Abigail Cabunoc Mayes, Kevin Moerman, Kyle Niemeyer, Karthik Ram, Tracy Teal, and Jake Vanderplas. Five new editors joined in the first year to handle areas not well covered by the original editors, and to help manage the large and growing number of submissions. They are George Githinji, Melissa Gymrek, Pjotr Prins, Ariel Rokem, and Roman Valls Guimera. The sixteen authors of this article are the members of the JOSS editors are firm supporters of open-source software for research, with extensive knowledge of the practices and ethics of open source. This knowledge is reflected in the JOSS submission system, peer-review process, and infrastructure. The journal offers a familiar environment for developers and authors to interact with reviewers and editors, leading to a citable published work: a software article. The article describes the software at a high level, and the software itself includes both source code and associated artifacts such as tests, documentation, and examples. With a Crossref digital object identifier (DOI), the article is able to collect citations, empowering the developers/authors to gain career credit for their work. JOSS thus fills a pressing need for computational researchers to advance professionally, while promoting higher quality software for science. JOSS also supports the broader open-science movement by encouraging researchers to share their software openly and follow best practices in its development.The A 2014 study of UK Russell Group Universities  reports JOSS focuses on research software and its place in the scholarly publishing ecosystem.Despite being a critical part of modern research, software lacks support across the scholarly ecosystem for its publication, acknowledgement, and citation . AcademiMost academic fields still rely on a one-dimensional credit model where academic articles and their associated citations are the dominant factor in the success of a researcher’s career. Software creators, to increase the likelihood of receiving career credit for their work, often choose to publish “software articles” that act as placeholder publications pointing to their software. At the same time, recent years have seen a push for sharing open research software .Beyond career-credit arguments for software creators, publishing research software enriches the scholarly record. Buckheit and Donoho paraphrased Jon Claerbout, a pioneer of reproducible research, as saying: “An article about a computational result is advertising, not scholarship. The actual scholarship is the full software environment, code and data, that produced the result” . The argThe conventional publishing mechanism of science is the research article, and a researcher’s career progression hinges on collecting citations for published works. Unfortunately, software citation  is in itThe developer’s next dilemma is where to publish, given the research content, novelty, length and other features of a software article. Since 2012, Neil Chue Hong has maintained a growing list of journals that accept software articles . He inclFrom the developer’s point of view, writing a software article can involve a great deal of extra work. Good software includes documentation for both users and developers that is sufficient to make it understandable. A software article may contain much of the same content, merely in a different format, and developers may not find value in rewriting their documentation in a manner less useful to their users and collaborators. These issues may lead developers to shun the idea of software articles and prefer to publish the software itself. Yet, software citation is not common and the mostly one-dimensional credit model of academia (based on article citations) means that publishing software often does not “count” for career progression .Journal of Open Source Software (JOSS) launched in May 2016 , a list of key references, and a link to the software archive and software repository. Articles are not allowed to include other content often found in software articles, such as descriptions of the API (application programming interface) and novel research results obtained using the software. The software API should already be described in the software documentation, and domain research results do not belong in JOSS—these should be published in a domain journal. Unlike most journals, which ease discoverability of new research and findings, JOSS serves primarily as a mechanism for software developers/authors to improve and publish their research software. Thus, software discovery is a secondary feature.JOSS design and implementation are based on the following principles:The  •JOSS articles are conventional articles in every other sense: the journal has an ISSN, articles receive Crossref DOIs with high-quality submission metadata, and articles are appropriately archived.Other than their short length,  •actual scholarship (the software), short abstract-length submissions are sufficient for these “advertisements.”Because software articles are “advertising” and simply pointers to the  •JOSS.Software is a core product of research and therefore the software itself should be archived appropriately when submitted to and reviewed in  •JOSS, they are the focus of peer review.  The JOSS review process itself, described in Section ‘Peer review in JOSS’, was based on the on-boarding checklist for projects joining the rOpenSci collaboration .The software must be open source by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) definition  to be addressed or makes addressing research challenges significantly better . •The software should be feature-complete, i.e., it cannot be a partial solution.JOSS is designed as a small collection of open-source tools that leverage existing infrastructure such as GitHub, Zenodo, and Figshare. A goal when building the journal was to minimize the development of new tools where possible.JOSS web application and submission tool is hosted at http://joss.theoj.org. It is a simple Ruby on Rails web application . The next section describes the review process in more detail.Many of the tasks associated with d Whedon  handles edon-API , handlesJOSS is designed to run at minimal cost with volunteer labor from editors and reviewers. The following fixed costs are currently incurred: •JOSS parent entity—Open Journals—so that article DOIs can be registered with Crossref.Crossref membership: $275. This is a yearly fixed cost for the  •Crossref article DOIs: $1. This is a fixed cost per article. •JOSS web application hosting (currently with Heroku): $19 per monthAssuming a publication rate of 100 articles per year results in a core operating cost of ∼$6 per article. With 200 articles per year—which seems possible for the second year—the cost drops to ∼$3.50 per article: JOSS articles and accepted articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License .Submitting authors retain copyright of  License . Any cod license  regardleJOSS, which do not focus on a specific domain and only consider submissions of software/software articles: the Journal of Open Research Software , SoftwareX , and now JOSS. Both JORS  and less on the article text, which is intended to be a brief description of the software. The role and form of peer review also varies across journals. In SoftwareX and JORS, the goal of the review is both to decide if the article is acceptable for publication and to improve it iteratively through a non-public, editor-mediated interaction between the authors and the anonymous reviewers. In contrast, JOSS has the goal of accepting most articles after improving them as needed, with the reviewers and authors communicating directly and publicly through GitHub issues.A good number of journals now accept, review, and publish software articles , which woth JORS  and SoftoftwareX  now reviCollected Algorithms  is a long-running venue for reviewing and sharing mathematical algorithms associated with articles published in Transactions on Mathematical Software and other ACM journals. However, CALGO authors must transfer copyright to ACM and software is not available under an open-source license—this contrasts with JOSS, where authors retain copyright and software must be shared under an open-source license. Computer Physics Communications  and Geoscientific Model Development (https://www.geoscientific-model-development.net/) publish full-length articles describing application software in computational physics and geoscience, respectively, where review primarily focuses on the article. Chue Hong maintains a list of journals in both categories .Leland McInnes submitted the  2.JOSS administrator, a “pre-review” issue was created in the joss-reviews GitHub repository The editor then asked the automated bot  3.JOSS review criteria’. The author, reviewer, and editor discussed any questions that arose during the review, and once the reviewer completed their checks, they notified the submitting author and editor. Compared with traditional journals, JOSS offers the unique feature of holding a discussion—in the open within a GitHub issue—between the reviewer(s), author(s), and editor. Like a true conversation, discussion can go back and forth in minutes or seconds, with all parties contributing at will. This contrasts with traditional journal reviews, where the process is merely an exchange between the reviewer(s) and author(s), via the editor, which can take months for each communication, and in practice is limited to one or two, perhaps three in some cases, exchanges due to that delay  with a service such as Zenodo or Figshare, and to post a link to the archive in the review thread. This link, in the form of a DOI, was associated with the submission via the command  5.Whedon RubyGem library on his local machine to produce the compiled PDF, update the JOSS website, deposit Crossref metadata, and issue a DOI for the submission (https://doi.org/10.21105/joss.00205).The editor-in-chief used the  6.JOSS article DOI and closed the review. The submission was then accepted into the journal.Finally, the editor-in-chief updated the review issue with the JOSS repository ? –Functionality documentation: Is the core functionality of the software documented to a satisfactory level ? –Automated tests: Are there automated tests or manual steps described so that the function of the software can be verified? –Community guidelines: Are there clear guidelines for third parties wishing to (1) contribute to the software, (2) report issues or problems with the software, and (3) seek support? •Software paper  –Authors: Does the paper.md file include a list of authors with their affiliations? –A statement of need: Do the authors clearly state what problems the software is designed to solve and who the target audience is? –References: Do all archival references that should have a DOI list one ?JOSS does not perform further review. The editor-in-chief is alerted with a note “This submission has been accepted to rOpenSci. The review thread can be found at [LINK TO ONBOARDING ISSUE],” allowing such submissions to be fast-tracked to acceptance.For submissions of software that has already been reviewed under rOpenSci’s rigorous onboarding guidelines , JOSS doJOSS published 111 articles since its inception in May 2016, and had an additional 41 articles under consideration. By the end of May 2017, Application Skeleton , while R is used in nearly one-third of articles (29). We believe the popularity of Python and R in JOSS submissions is the result of (1) the adoption of these languages (and open-source practices) in scientific computing communities and (2) our relationship with the rOpenSci project.JOSS undergoes review by one or more reviewers. The set of 111 published articles have been reviewed by 93 unique reviewers. The majority of articles received a review by one reviewer (average of 1.11 ± 0.34), with a maximum of three reviewers. Based on available data in the review issues, on average, editors reached out to 1.85 ± 1.40 potential reviewers (at most 8 in one case) via mentions in the GitHub review issue. This does not include external communication, e.g., via email or Twitter. Overall, JOSS editors contacted 1.65 potential reviewers for each actual review (based on means).Each article considered by 2https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1PAPRJ63yq9aPC1COLjaQp8mHmEq3rZUzwUYxTulyu78/edit?usp=sharing.That reviewer list has since been replaced and is now available at Considering the unique reviewer count of 93, we clearly have reached beyond those that volunteered to review a priori. Benefits of using GitHub’s issue infrastructure and our open reviews include: (1) the ability to tag multiple people, via their GitHub handles, to invite them as potential reviewers; (2) the discoverability of the work so that people may volunteer to review without being formally contacted; (3) the ability to get additional, unprompted feedback and comments; and (4) the ability to find reviewers by openly advertising, e.g., on social media. Furthermore, GitHub is a well-known, commonly used platform where many (if not most) potential authors and reviewers already have accounts.Interestingly, the current reviewer list contains only 52 entries, as of this writing .22That JOSS editors. Editor-in-chief Arfon Smith stewarded the majority of articles published in the first year. This was somewhat unavoidable in the first three months after launch, as Smith served as the de facto sole editor for all submissions, with other members of the editorial board assisting. This strategy was not sustainable and, over time, we adopted the pre-review/review procedure to hand off articles to editors. Also, authors can now select during submission the appropriate editor based on article topic.Lastly, we analyzed the affiliations of the 286 authors associated with articles published in the first year. JOSS also developed formal relationships with two US-based nonprofit organizations. In March 2017, JOSS became a community affiliate of the Open Source Initiative (https://opensource.org), the steward of the open-source definition, which promotes open-source software and educates about appropriate software licenses. And, in April 2017, JOSS became a fiscally sponsored project of NumFOCUS (https://www.numfocus.org), a 501(c)(3) charity that supports and promotes “world-class, innovative, open source scientific computing.” Being associated with these two prominent community organizations increases the trust of the community in our efforts. Furthermore, as a NumFOCUS project, JOSS will be able to raise funding to sustain its activities and grow.In its first year, JOSS grows, the process of distributing functions across the editorial board will continue to evolve—and more editors may be needed.Our focus for the second year will be on continuing to provide a high-quality experience for submitting authors and reviewers, and making the best use of the editorial board. In our first year, we progressed from a model where the editor-in-chief handled most central functions to one with more distributed roles for the editors, particularly that of ensuring that reviews are useful and timely. Editors can now select and self-assign to submissions they want to manage, while the editor-in-chief only assigns the remaining submissions. As JOSS toolchain. Specifically, we plan on automating the final steps for accepting an article. For example, generating Crossref metadata and compiling the article are both currently handled by the editor-in-chief on his local machine using the Whedon RubyGem library. In the future, we would like authors and reviewers to be able to ask the Whedon-API bot to compile the paper for them, and other editors should be able to ask the bot to complete the submission of Crossref metadata on their behalf. Other improvements are constantly under discussion on the JOSS GitHub repository . In fact, anyone is able to report bugs and suggest enhancements to the experience. And, since the JOSS tools are open source, we welcome contributions in the form of bug-fixes or enhancements via the usual pull-request protocols.In the second year, we plan to complete a number of high-priority improvements to the JOSS tools and infrastructure, we will take on the more tricky questions about publishing software, such as how to handle new software versions. Unlike traditional research articles that remain static once published, software usually changes over time, at least for maintenance and to avoid software rot/collapse . Furthermore, because all potential uses of the software are not known at the start of a project, the need or opportunity arises to add features, improve performance, improve accuracy, etc. After making one or more changes, software developers frequently update the software with a new version number. Over time, the culmination of these changes may result in a major update to the software, and with many new contributors a new version might correspond to a new set of authors if the software is published. However, this process may not translate clearly to JOSS. The editorial board will accept a new JOSS article published with each major version or even a minor version if the changes seem significant enough to the editor and reviewer(s), but we do not yet know if this will satisfy the needs of both developers and users .Beyond roles and responsibilities for the editors, and improvements to the JOSS editorial board will consider publication of an article describing a forked version of software if it includes substantial changes from a previously published version. Authorship questions may be more challenging when dealing with forks compared with new versions, since forks can retain varying amounts of code from the original projects. However, while a version control history generally makes it easy to suggest people who should be authors, deciding on authorship can be difficult and subjective, and is therefore ultimately project-dependent. We prefer to leave authorship decisions to the projects, with discussion taking place as needed with reviewers and editors.The discussion about new software versions also generally applies to software forks, where software is copied and, after some divergent development, a new software package emerges. Similar to how we handle new software versions, the JOSS in response to the acute need for an answer to this predicament. JOSS is a venue for authors who wish to receive constructive peer feedback, publish, and collect citations for their research software. By encouraging researchers to develop their software following best practices, and then share and publish it openly, JOSS supports the broader open-science movement. The number of submissions confirms the keen demand for this publishing mechanism: more than 100 accepted articles in the first year and more than 40 others under review. By the end of 2017, JOSS has published nearly 200 articles. Community members have also responded positively when asked to review submissions in an open and non-traditional format, contributing useful reviews of the submitted software.Software today encapsulates—and generates—important research knowledge, yet it has not entered the science publication ecosystem in a practical way. This situation is costly for science, through the lack of career progression for valuable personnel: research software developers. We founded JOSS is currently not fully indexed by Google Scholar, despite the fact that JOSS articles include adequate metadata and that we made an explicit request for inclusion in March 2017 (see GitHub issue #130). Also, we may need to invest more effort into raising awareness of good practices for citing JOSS articles. That said, we have some preliminary citation statistics: according to Google Scholar, corner.py  may be a route to allow authors to contribute to JOSS in the future, but we have not yet decided on this change. Under the NumFOCUS nonprofit umbrella, JOSS is now eligible to seek grants for sustaining its future, engaging in new efforts like outreach, and improving its infrastructure and tooling.The journal cemented its position in the first year of operation, building trust within the community of open-source research-software developers and growing in name recognition. It also earned weighty affiliations with OSI and NumFOCUS, the latter bringing the opportunity to raise funding for sustained operations. Although publishing costs are low at $3–6 per article, JOSS is certainly part of our growth strategy. Awareness of the journal so far has mostly spread through word-of-mouth and social networking  (https://doaj.org/toc/2475-9066). We plan to present JOSS at relevant domain conferences, like we did at the 2017 SIAM Conference on Computational Science & Engineering . The original artifacts could be archived on other services such as Figshare, Zenodo, Dryad, arXiv, or engrXiv/AgriXiv/LawArXiv/PsyArXiv/SocArXiv/bioRxiv. This presents manifold opportunities to expand the ways we assign career credit to the digital artifacts of research. JOSS was born to answer the needs of research software developers to thrive in the current merit traditions of science, but we may have come upon a generalizable formula for digital science.Finally, the infrastructure and tooling of


Innovation in Aging (IA) as its second Editor-in-Chief. In its first 4 years, IA has already made its mark in aging science. We have published more than 135 papers and put together highly cited special issues and sections in caregiving dynamics, Latinx health, public health and aging, and mental health among older adults in minority groups. IA is indexed in PubMed, the Emerging Sources Citation Index (Web of Science), the Directory of Open Access Journals, and SCOPUS. We continue to see submissions at an expanding pace and, on average, get first decisions back to authors within 25 days. With increasing citations, we are on track to receive an impressive journal impact factor.I am honored to take the reins of IA?However, in science, we do not rest on our laurels. What’s next for IA. Each article in IA requires a statement on translational significance prominently placed in a blue box near the title. This is not window dressing but rather forces authors to consider the implications of their research for changing some component of aging, enhancing our ability to address a challenge posed by aging bodies, minds, relationships, or societies. This is a tall order. It will likely require more “convergence science,” research that crosses levels and integrates “biological, psychological, sociocultural, and environmental data” (IA seeks research that draws on multiple disciplines to solve problems that stand in the way of optimal aging.Translation in research on aging is the hallmark of al data” . This real data” . FundameIA will continue to build on its track record in convergence aging science. Some of our most prominent examples include a systems science approach to human capital to rethink engagement over the life span (IA offers a venue for people to think outside of the box as they complete our blue box for translational significance. Readers can expect special issues explicitly addressing interdisciplinary research, in which multiple authors from different disciplines will collaborate on topics in gerontology.ife span , researcife span , and assife span . IA offeIA will also exploit the flexibility of open-access publishing. Open access will become increasingly more prominent in all disciplines, as it should, because this approach to publishing is consistent with the open data and open science movement. Open access is now required in the European Union and by an increasing number of funders. The challenge is expense to authors and confusion spread by predatory journals that have seized on open-access publishing. To confront this challenge, we need to educate authors about the benefits of open access, including increased dissemination and readership, but foundations and academic departments also need to set aside funds to cover publishing charges. Oxford University Press appropriately provides subsidies for scholars based in lower- and middle-income economies. The open-access format also offers other benefits, such as the absence of limits on pages or issues. I hope we can also use the open access model to develop interactive graphics and ways to “personalize” articles through slide downloads, chats with authors, and social media efforts.IA will continue to rely on key partners to help bring out the best science from our authors. These include our associate editors and editorial and advisory boards for timely expert review and suggestions to carry out IA’s mission of interdisciplinary translational research, but also researchers who respond to the call to peer review, the GSA editorial management team, and Oxford University Press. As an editor, I have a new appreciation for the sophisticated machinery required to publish timely, high-quality research.IA will reach out to junior scholars and help them develop their work to make it ready for publication. This is an old responsibility of editors that unfortunately may have gotten lost in the high-paced digital climate we now inhabit. Many of us have benefited from such an editor, and it is a tradition we should encourage. Along with IA associate editors, I would like to encourage support for early and new investigators through clear suggestions in response letters on ways to improve the science, helpful guidance on revisions, pairing with senior scholars for guidance, or just handholding over multiple revisions. This level of involvement is part of our job.Lastly, an editor’s job is to encourage science and also the scientists. In particular,


Genetics Research my instinct was to dismiss it outright. It was not a journal I was familiar with, could it even have been just another of the spam emails from predatory/fake journals we are all blighted with each day? But then I took a closer look. Granted, the impact factor was low, but it has a long and established history, having been founded in 1960 as Genetical Research. Moreover it comes from the Cambridge University Press stable, the oldest and one of the most venerated publishing houses which, importantly, is a non-commercial enterprise with the highest of ethical standards. Perhaps there was something more to this journal and my initial impression was mistaken? I decided to meet the editorial team and was impressed by the professionalism, enthusiasm and drive to give this publication a new life as an open access journal. I was quickly convinced that there is real potential to develop the journal into something special that could make a significant contribution to the scientific community. I agreed to take on the position and started at the beginning of this year. As a clinician-scientist with over 20 years experience of publishing papers I am very aware of the trials and tribulations that authors face when submitting their work to journals. I have had many excellent experiences but also some downright awful ones, and I am keen to use my knowledge to bring out the best in the journal and the service it provides to the scientific community. We are all aware that Impact Factors are a flawed metric but in the absence of anything better we continue to abide by the system. GR currently has a low IF and I realise it may well not be your first choice journal, but we will do our best to provide an excellent service with fast turnaround times and clear communication with submitting authors. We are ambitious and with the new impetus from Open Access we are confident that we can move the journal up the rankings over the next few years.When I first got the email invite for the Editorship of The hitch-hiking effect of a favourable gene” and, published in 1974). How can we bring such an illustrious journal back to its former glory given the modern day challenges of working in a crowded and highly competitive field? We have taken the first steps by making it Open Access and appointing a new Editorial Board. Our aim is to publish high quality research in all areas of genetics and to better serve the community we will solicit reviews and opinion pieces from leaders in diverse fields of genetics. We welcome methods papers and novel findings that may not be fully tested but could potentially be ground-breaking. We will give speedy consideration to articles that have been reviewed and rejected by higher impact factor journals and give a quick decision on their suitability for publication in GR. We will encourage submissions from up and coming scientists as well as established ones. We will engage with social media to publicise new articles and give them maximum exposure by capitalising on the extensive resources available to us through the Press. Our aim is to stay closely connected with the genetics community and serve you to the best of our abilities.GR was first published in 1960, only a few years after discovery of the double helix and the correct determination of the human diploid chromosome. Back then it was mainly focussed on mouse, drosophila and other non-human genetics and published works by world-renowned scientists such as Mary Lyon, Charlotte Auerbach and John Maynard Smith (who is also the author of GR's most cited paper, entitled “th anniversary for GR and we will celebrate this with a series of specially commissioned pieces looking back over the last six decades and forward to the future. In the meantime please do get in touch with your suggestions for articles and tell us how you think we can best serve the scientific community and beyond with our new Open Access platform. We are genuinely interested in hearing your ideas and feedback so please do contact us at geneticsresearch@cambridge.orgWe have seen some dramatic changes since the inception of GR and today's world of research bears very little resemblance to that seemingly cosy and quaint time of early discovery in the last century. Even ten years ago it was hard to conceive that whole genome sequencing would be a viable tool for a modestly funded researcher. The huge amounts of data generated from high throughput genetic analysis present new challenges not just in analysis and interpretation but also in the ethical, social and legal implications and we welcome research articles and opinion pieces on all these areas. In fact we have recently broadened the scope of the journal to “all aspects of genetics, or in any field which has an important bearing in genetics”. Next year will be the 60Genetics Research a truly excellent journal that authors will be proud to publish in.Finally, I would like to thank my predecessor Professor Noam Shomron and his Editorial Board for their hard work in running the Journal over the last six years. I look forward to working with our new team to build on this foundation and make


Genetics Research was first launched as Genetical Research in 1960 with the goal of publishing “original work in English on all aspects of genetics, or in any field which has an important bearing in genetics”. The Executive Editor was E. C. R. Reeve of the Institute of Animal Genetics, Edinburgh. The journal was well received by the community and received high accolades from the leading microbiologist J. A. B. Stocker  and microorganisms”. The journal went on to publish seminal papers including papers on: Inbreeding in artificial selection programs , which permits use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. Subsequently, an Article Processing Charge (APC) will be payable by authors or their funder on acceptance of their primary research article. In the majority of cases, these costs are paid by the author, his or her institution, or a funder.Mindful of this evolution, we are delighted to announce that from January 2019, From January 2019, we are also introducing a new editorial board with a focus on creating an internationally representative and gender balanced board. We are broadening the scope again respecting the mission of the journal when it was created. We are also making efforts to encourage open research by endorsing strong open data policies.We hope you are as enthusiastic by these changes as we are and that you contribute by submitting your work, by engaging with the journal content as a reader, and by providing your expert peer review advice, make this journal an important venue for your community. We would like to thank you for your continuing support and endorsement of the journal as we move towards an exciting future.


Revista Latino-Americana deEnfermagem, RLAE) aims to contribute to the advancement of scientificknowledge and professional practice in Nursing and other health areas through thepublication of articles of high scientific and social merit that have followed theresearch integrity parameters and ethical codes of conduct recommended by theInternational Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), and the Code of Conduct and BestPractice Guidelines for Journal Editors.The Latin American Journal of Nursing  are available in data repositoriesrecognized by the academic community, strongly encouraging this deposit;It adds the nominal identification of the Associate Editor who conducted theevaluation process at the time of publication of the article. This is the firststep in opening the peer review process;It clearly describes that the criterion of scientific merit is a priority in theacceptance of manuscripts for publication, also considering the potential foradvancing scientific knowledge in the theme resulting from the study; theircontributions to the advancement of clinical practice and/or teaching and/ordevelopment of public health policies and/or future research; the scientificquality identified by the method and analysis employed; rigor and originality inthe presentation of results; global relevance and interest. areadopted by RLAE in order to improve the quality and transparency of health research andhelp the author to present all the relevant and necessary aspects in the writing ofscientific articles. It is noteworthy that the partial description of the results(omission of some outcomes), the omission of essential information about the method, theresults and adverse effects of the therapy, incomplete description of the interventions,and poorly prepared abstracts are aspects that prevent the acceptance of manuscripts forpublication. The guides must be used by the authors in the elaboration of theirmanuscripts and by the consultants and associated editors in their evaluation.The EQUATOR Network guides for best practices andethical standards in conducting and reports of research published in medical journals,in item III.L, whose specifications are required by RLAE.Among the various guides provided by the Network is CONSORT , created in 1996 to guide authors to report the methods and results ofrandomized clinical trials. As it is considered the gold standard for clinical practicein health, randomized clinical trials were highlighted in the recommendations of theICMJEThe first topic dealt with in this item concerns the registration of clinical trials inpublic registries in order to prevent the selective publication of research results;avoid unnecessary duplication of research efforts; inform the community about planned orongoing trials, and contribute to ethics committees by providing input for the approvalof new studies under evaluation. The retrospective registration of a research protocoldoes not serve any of these purposes. The information on the number of the publicregistry of clinical trial studies at the end of the summary is a requirement of RLAE,as well as the presentation of the checklist and flowchart of the CONSORT guide..CONSORT endorsement by medical journals has been one of the most widespread actions aimedat improving the integrity levels of randomized trial reports. The evidence, however,shows that despite modest improvements, when CONSORT is supported by journals, thequality of clinical trial reports remains insufficient, a positionassumed by RLAE.The sending of the CONSORT checklist by the authors is not always a guarantee that theCONSORT items were effectively satisfied. Among the reasons for the presence ofinconsistency between the informed and the defendant, two deserve to be highlighted: itis possible that the authors are not aware of the CONSORT requirements or that, despitetheir efforts to comply with the requirements, the way the items are presented does notallow for interpretation at the level of detail required. Misinterpretation of CONSORTis a major concern, as it means that essential information about the conduct of thestudy is poorly communicated. Second, difficulties can lie with consultants and editors.It is possible that they feel confident about the quality of the reports only because ofthe presence of a complete checklist. Among the possible solutions and in an effort tomake the most of requiring checklist submission, journals should consider clarifyingtheir position on whether the complete checklists or, at least the main items on thechecklists verification, should be examined by editors or reviewers or even by trainededitorial assistantsAnother requirement is that in the cover letter sent to the editor at the time ofsubmission of the manuscript, a declaration must be included on all previous submissionsand reports that may be considered as a redundant publication of the same or of a verysimilar article. Copies of this material must be included in the documents sent in orderto assist the editor in decision-making. This measure aims to control the submission ofmultipart scientific texts which are not accepted by RLAE.In times of countless changes in the production and dissemination of scientificknowledge, RLAE's editorial policy will continue to be updated in the face of newdemands from Open Science.


Review Commons).Fears that a long-planned meeting of the Biology Open (BiO) Editor team would be disrupted by the then-scheduled Brexit were unfounded, with the team from the BiO editorial office and the majority of BiO's Editors gathering in Oxford on Halloween 2019. This was the first Editor meeting hosted by current Editor-in-Chief Steven Kelly, who treated the Editors to a tour of his college. The meeting itself involved an in-depth review of BiO's progress, and a lengthy discussion of how to meet the challenges faced by BiO in the ever-evolving publishing ecosystem . BiO encourages authors and Editors to consider diversity in career stage, geographical location, gender and ethnicity when suggesting and selecting appropriate reviewers for a manuscript. [This was prompted, in part, by a gender analysis conducted across The Company of Biologists' journals . We thank every one of them for their expertise and time, as well as our authors, readers and editors for their support.https://www.rsc.org/globalassets/04-campaigning-outreach/campaigning/gender-bias/gender-bias-report-final.pdf). Many thanks to Sam for his work on this project, and to our colleagues at the RSC for their support.This analysis was done primarily by Sam Holden, a PhD student at The Sainsbury Laboratory and University of East Anglia, Norwich, who in 2018 spent three months as a Professional Internships for PhD Students (PIPS) intern with us as part of his PhD program. Sam was helped in his analysis by the Royal Society of Chemistry (RSC), who developed the algorithm used to assign gender to names , we downloaded data on all research papers submitted between October 2006 and May 2018, and extracted the following information:• Outcome of submission • Name of first author• Name of corresponding author (note that this may be the same as the first author)• Names of individuals suggested by authors as potential reviewers• Names of individuals invited to review the paper• Names of reviewers who completed a report on the paperWe ran the lists of names through an algorithm that assigns gender to names, along with a confidence value in the assignment. We assigned a gender to names where the confidence value was greater than 90%, allowing us to assign gender to ∼75% of authors and 85% of reviewers. It should be noted that the algorithm was developed using a dataset of mainly Western names, and the majority of names with ‘unassigned’ gender are Asian. Thus, the results outlined below do not necessarily reflect patterns that might apply to non-Western authors and reviewers.To allow more rigorous statistical analysis, data were pooled across all the journals and the whole >10-year time span, although we have also looked at trends over time and between journals.In addition to calculating basic statistics on the gender balance of our author and reviewer pool, we also analysed the success rate of submissions based on author and reviewer gender.Key results • Almost exactly 50% of first authors  are female – implying minimal gender disparity at the level of the PhD students and postdocs in our community of authors. However, among corresponding authors  only 30.3% were female.P<0.05), reduction in acceptance rate – only 28.5% of corresponding authors on accepted papers were female.• The gender of the first author had no influence on the success rate of the submission. However, papers from female corresponding authors showed a slight, but statistically significant  and, once sent out for peer review, are less likely to be accepted for publication (52.9% vs 56.2%).• There is a greater gender imbalance in our pool of reviewers than in our pool of corresponding authors: 26.1% of people invited to review a paper are female and 25.8% of completed reviews are by women . These figures have improved over the 10-year time window: in 2007, only 23% of reviewers were female; this reached 29% by 2017 .• Authors are more likely to suggest reviewers of the same gender as themselves. However, we have not found evidence that female-authored papers are at a disadvantage if reviewed by men .This box has also been reproduced in other Company journals. See also an Editorial  from theThe Editors also heard from an early-career ambassador, Steven Burgess from the University of Illinois and previously eLife Editorial Community Manager. Steven touched on the involvement of early-career researchers (ECRs) in the review process, highlighting the importance and advantages of using ECRs and dispelling certain myths. The issue of ghost-writing of peer reviews by junior researchers was also mentioned . The profile can then be used in job, visa and grant applications, complete with journal-verified review activities.BiO is also supporting its reviewers through a trial integration of its online peer review platform with Scientific Meeting Grants from the Company will be eligible to apply to publish a Meeting Review in BiO free of charge. These Meeting Reviews will summarise the emergent themes and discussions, and provide a platform to support dissemination and access to meeting content for the global biological sciences community. The first two examples of such Meeting Reviews are already published (https://bio.biologists.org/meetingreview. BiO is fully Open Access (articles are published under a CC-BY license), has the DOAJ seal and is indexed in PMC, PubMed, GoOA, Scopus and Web of Science. BiO Meeting Reviews are an excellent way to increase the dissemination goals of your meeting, and ensure free global access and maximum visibility to the scientific community.The BiO Editors were also the first to hear about ‘BiO Meeting Reviews’ – a new initiative from BiO and its publisher – the not-for-profit Company of Biologists. We are delighted to announce that recipients of ublished . Detaile