ArXiv) that dispense with traditional peer review altogether, and the growth of “non-selective review,” focusing on papers' scientific quality rather than their perceived importance and novelty. Other potentially important developments include forms of “open review,” which remove reviewer anonymity, and interactive review, as well as new mechanisms for post-publication review and out-of-channel reader commentary, especially critical commentary targeting high profile papers. One of the strongest findings of the survey is the persistence of major differences between the peer review processes used by different disciplines. None of these differences is likely to disappear in the foreseeable future. The most likely scenario for the coming years is thus continued diversification, in which different review mechanisms serve different author, reader, and publisher needs. Relatively little is known about the impact of these innovations on the problems they address. These are important questions for future quantitative research.“Classical peer review” has been subject to intense criticism for slowing down the publication process, bias against specific categories of paper and author, unreliability, inability to detect errors and fraud, unethical practices, and the lack of recognition for unpaid reviewers. This paper surveys innovative forms of peer review that attempt to address these issues. Based on an initial literature review, we construct a sample of 82 channels of scientific communication covering all forms of review identified by the survey, and analyze the review mechanisms used by each channel. We identify two major trends: the rapidly expanding role of preprint servers (e.g.,  Web technologies, rapid reductions in the cost of computer storage and network communications, and the advent of specialized search engines have revolutionized the economics of scientific publishing, initiating disruptive changes that are still in progress. Perhaps the most obvious has been the enormous increase in the number of papers published, which has grown at an average rate of 5% per annum, and shows no sign of slowing down. Equally important has been the emergence of Open Access publishing . Today, by contrast, new review processes are emerging—in most cases driven by Open Access Publishing. While some of these innovations are highly experimental and several have been unsuccessful, others are already widespread. In particular, two key innovations  evidence about their impact, and identifies gaps in our current knowledge that call for future research.Assesses the suitability of a manuscript for publication, and provides feedback to authors, helping them to improve the quality of their manuscriptsFollows formal procedures and assessment criteriaTakes place before publicationIs highly selectiveAssesses manuscripts in terms of their novelty, “importance for the field” and “interest for a broad readership”Is conducted by a small number of editor-selected expert reviewers, whose names are not revealed to authors or readers, and who make their assessments without any direct interaction among themselves or with authorsConcludes with a publication decision taken by the editor(s).For the purposes of this study we define classical peer review as a process which:Philosophical Transactions , which began to use peer review in the late 1940s , there is widespread consensus about its advantages. The anonymity of the review process allows reviewers to express critical views freely, without fear of retaliation from authors. Lack of interaction among reviewers prevents high prestige or forceful reviewers from dominating the review process. Authors benefit from the prestige that comes with publication on peer-reviewed journals. Institutions use peer-reviewed publications as an indicator of scientific productivity and value. For publishers of paper journals, with high marginal production costs and limited page budgets, classical peer review provides an effective mechanism for selecting articles likely to attract a large number of citations, and improving impact factors. Experimental studies and surveys of authors' and reviewers' opinions concur that peer review improves the quality of scientific publications, filtering out low quality work, catching errors, improving the writing and providing readers with a useful signal of quality Bradley, . NonetheDelay. Classical peer review represents an unacceptable slowing down of the scientific process  we have” Smith, . It is ppaper or article is defined as a document describing, reviewing or discussing results, observations, hypotheses, theories, methods, and other outputs of academic and engineering research. Publication is the act whereby an author makes a paper available to readers. Publication channels are media  that allow the publication of papers, reviews of papers or user commentary on papers (see below). A publisher is a commercial or non-commercial organization responsible for the management of one or more publication channels. Peer review is a formal process for the assessment of a manuscript. It may be in channel (managed by the publication channel where accepted papers will appear), or out of channel (offered by review channels). In channel peer review leads to a decision affecting the status of a manuscript submitted for publication through a publication channel . Rapid checks of quality or author's credentials by editors (access review) are not considered as “review.” Commentary is an informal process allowing readers to comment on a paper but with no consequences for its formal status. A commentary channel is a medium  allowing users to comment on papers. Publication channels, publishers, review channels and commentary channels are all classified as communication channels, for brevity channels.For the purposes of this study, a The study began with an informal literature survey, seeded by searching Google Scholar for the term “peer review” and reviewed the content of the first three pages of results. Informal contributions to the debate  were identified, using the same search term with Google. All papers whose abstracts indicated that they described or surveyed one or more systems of peer review, or communication channels, were downloaded and read by one of the authors. Peer review processes applying to domains other than scientific papers  and actual applications of specific peer review process  were excluded. Terminology, and names of channels were extracted and added to the list of search terms, shown in Supplemental Data Table Biomed Central Series) and three publishers . In each of these cases, we used Scopus to identify all journals in the series or published by the publisher, and chose the one with the highest Scimago Journal Rank (SJR) in 2013 to represent them all. Thus, the Biomed Central Series is represented in our sample by BMC Genome Biology, Copernicus by Geoscientific Model Development, Frontiers by Frontiers in Synaptic Neuroscience and Hindawi by Computational Intelligence and Neuroscience.A list was created containing all communications channels identified during the literature review. The list included one series of journals , “multidisciplinary journals” , Medicine , the “human and social sciences” , and “arts and the humanities” . For the sake of completeness, we also included data from two short-term experiments in peer review  Experiment) that are no longer in progress. The characteristics of these experiments are described later in this paper.To ensure adequate representation for subscription journals, we added the three top-ranking journals in the Scimago rankings . Wherever possible, we also examined papers made available through the channel, gathering information about the implementation of the policies announced on the web site. The information collected in this way made it possible to characterize 82 out of 89 channels in the original list. In 7 cases, it was impossible to gather adequate information, either because the channel had ceased to operate, because the web site was not functioning, or because the required information was not available in any of the documents retrieved. These channels were excluded from the final sample.The fact that the sample was constructed using a literature survey means that it does not provide a statistically representative picture of the whole world of academic publishing: channels likely to be discussed in the literature  are over-represented; conversely smaller, less innovative channels with lower profiles are under-represented. Nonetheless, the sample covers a broad range of publication methods, disciplines, and business models, and includes at least one channel for each of the innovative review processes identified in the literature survey.The final sample consists of 50 journals, 18 preprint servers or document repositories, 3 publishers, and 17 channels belonging to other categories. 28 channels are specialized in the Natural Sciences, 17 are multidisciplinary, 12 specialize in medicine, 11 in the humanities and the arts, 6 in the social sciences, 4 in mathematics and 1 in business. 47 are freely accessible over the web, 24 are accessible by subscription only, 9 are hybrid channels including both open access and subscription material. 1 adopts a delayed open access formula, in which published papers are restricted to subscribers until 6 months after publication. In 5 cases, we were unable to ascertain the necessary information.The original intention of the study was to create a simple taxonomy of peer review systems. However, subsequent analysis showed that the channels in the sample mixed and matched different aspects of peer review identified during the literature review. Individual channels were therefore classified in terms of the seven dimensions described below.No reviewPre-publication review,Post-publication review,Mixed processes When review takes placeNo reviewNon-selective review: a review process in which reviewers are instructed to limit their assessment to issues of scientific quality, without considering importance, novelty or potential impactSelective review: a review in which reviewers are instructed to consider the importance, novelty and potential impact of a paper, as well as its scientific qualityWhat is assessedEditorsReviewers selected by the editor(s)Reviewers proposed by authorsThe community (readers of the publication channel–sometimes a subset of readers)Who are the reviewersDouble-blind: reviewers are blinded to authors' identitiesSingle-blind: authors identities are revealed to reviewersAnonymity of authorsAnonymous: reviewers identities are concealed throughout the review processOpen: reviewers identifies are revealed to authors and, in some cases, are published together with the article they have reviewedAnonymity of reviewers–open reviewNo: reviewers review articles independently without interacting with editors, other reviewers or authorsReviewers only: reviewers discuss with other reviewers (and possibly editors) before finalizing their reportsReviewers and authors: reviewers discuss with other reviewers and authors in a fully interactive processInteractionNo: the channel provides no facilities for readers to comment on articlesIn channel: the channel provides facilities for readers to comment to the articles it publishesOut of channel: the channel provides facilities for readers to comment on articles published through other channels.Reader commentaryEach channel was classified in terms of the variables listed above. Entries were checked by both authors. The full classification data can be found in Supplemental Data Sheet The quantitative importance of different channels was assessed in terms of the total number of articles published by the channel from its launch until February 2015, and the total number of articles published in 2014. Numbers were estimated by counting the number of hits from a Scopus search with the ISSN of the channel or its name. Values obtained in this way were validated against the exact figures for all Frontiers journals, which were available to the authors. In most cases, the Scopus results lay within 5% of the exact value. In cases where a journal or repository was not indexed in Scopus, values were estimated from data appearing on its web site and/or from search results in Google Scholar. Given this variety of methods, values cited later in this paper should be regarded as rough estimates. However, the difference between maximum and minimum values spans six orders of magnitude. Differences on this scale provide a useful indication of which innovations are having the greatest impact.In addition to these quantitative measures, the study analyzed the formal and informal literature collected during the literature review to identify experimental, observational studies and specific cases offering insights into the strengths and weaknesses of particular forms of peer review. Results appearing in the primary literature, were supplemented with opinions and factual information from the blogosphere, news reports etc.Of the 81 channels of communication in the final sample, 27, nearly all subscription journals, use “classical peer review,” as defined by the formal criteria defined earlier. Virtually all the Open Access Journals have introduced some kind of innovation. Given that the sample is deliberately biased toward innovative forms of review, it is probable that the sample underestimates the proportion of channels using classical peer review. Despite this bias, the composition of the sample clearly shows the continuing importance of classical peer review in the scientific publishing ecosystem.republish materials that have already appeared elsewhere .One of the most important trends of the last 20 years has been the increasing tendency of authors to by-pass the delays, biases, unreliability and restrictions associated with classic peer review, by publishing their work directly on preprint servers, which they also use to publish materials not suitable for submission to journals  and to The best-established channel for self-publication of scientific papers is through non-commercial preprint servers , created by Paul Ginsparg of Cornell University in 1991 and initially designed to host papers in high-energy physics .The oldest is ArXiv were preliminary versions of articles that the authors made available for community discussion and criticism before submitting them to traditional journals. Today, however, ArXiv has taken on a second role as a primary channel of scientific communication, which authors use to publish papers they never submit elsewhere , which has ceased to accept new preprints (964 papers), the Linear Algebraic Groups and Related Structures Preprint Server (http://www.math.uni-bielefeld.de/lag/) (548 papers), the Mathematical Physics Preprint Server (http://www.ma.utexas.edu/mp_arc/mp_arc-home.html) (5701 papers), Preprints on Conservation Laws (http://www.math.ntnu.no/conservation/) (834 papers) and the Real Algebraic and Analytical Geometry Preprint Server (http://www.maths.manchester.ac.uk/raag/) (352 papers). More extensive lists can be found at , which covers the full range of academic disciplines, with an unusual emphasis on “electric, communication, and autocontrol technology.” At the time of writing, the server contained just 6748 papers in English , Cogprints (http://cogprints.org/), which specializes in psychology, cognitive science and computing and BiorXiv, designed for biologists. These services receive far fewer submissions and are indexed more rarely than equivalent services in mathematics and physics. At the time of writing, data for SSRN was not available; Cogprints contained 4167 papers   ArXiv,  with int) ArXiv, .ArXiv more than compensate for the weakness of smaller channels , which ceased to accept new manuscripts in 2012 , which is still in operation. Both services focus on the biomedical sciences.In recent years, a few journals have also begun to offer preprint services. The two examples in the survey sample are Nature Precedings published 5058 papers .Before it ceased operations, Nature Precedings ceased operations, the Nature Publishing Group stated that “technological advances and the needs of the research community have evolved to the extent that the Nature Precedings site is unsustainable as it was originally conceived” , such a system could give rise to a completely new system of Open Evaluation, as proposed in Kriegeskorte  and to perform formal peer review geskorte . To dateIn-channel post-publication review can be defined as a review process that is managed by the same channel that hosts the article under review. It is relatively rare (just 3 examples in the sample). The most important examples  are discussed in-depth in  (http://www.etaij.org/), an online journal, launched by Erik Sandewall, in 1997  (http://www.atmospheric-chemistry-and-physics.net/), a journal published by Copernicus Publications (http://publications.copernicus.org/). In 2001, ACP introduced a 2-stage peer review process, which was later imitated by sister journals, also published by the European Geosciences Union, and by Copernicus. Following rapid pre-screening (access review), to check that they meet normal standards for academic publishing, papers submitted to ACP appear immediately on the journal's website, where they are given the status of a “discussion papers.” This establishes the authors' precedence and makes their findings immediately available to the scientific community. Once the paper has been published on the web site, the paper is assigned to peer reviewers, following the same procedures normally used for pre-publication review. There ensues a public discussion between the reviewers and the authors, in which other interested members of the scientific can also participate. This discussion, which lasts 8 weeks, constitutes the first phase of the review process. It is followed by a second phase of non-public revisions and review following the model used in traditional journals. If this leads to acceptance of the paper, it is published on the main journal  and the possibility offered reviewers to claim authorship for their contributions .Rejection rates are low (about 20%). In this way, F1000Research, Philica, and the Semantic Web Journal, online journals that use a variety of business models. F1000Research publishes original research papers in biology and medicine, which are subsequently submitted to post-publication review; authors are charged a publication fee. Philica offers completely free immediate publication of any scientific article, again followed by a post-publication review. Following a brief access review, articles submitted to the Semantic Web Journal , are immediately posted to the journal's web site, and announced in a blog. The editors then solicit reviews from three reviewers, and invite users of the site to submit their own reviews—all of which are published on the web site. After 8 weeks, the editors decide whether or not the paper should be officially published on the journal, based on the reviews they have received , Philica 422 (data for 2014 not available) and Semantic Web Journal 183 (42 in 2014). The titles appearing on the Philica web page suggest, furthermore, that not all documents published through this channel meet normal criteria for scientific publication.Other channels offering immediate publication and post-publication review include Out of channel post-publication review is a service offered by a channel that provides quality assured reviews of articles originally published on other channels —an idea originally proposed by Juan Miguel Campanario  that allow any individual user to write a review, and services that allow readers to comment on a paper after publication or give it a rating, without enforcing any kind of formal procedure.F1000 Prime (http://f1000.com/prime), founded in 2009, publishes reviews of individual papers in the biomedical sciences. The reviewers are members of the Faculty of 1000, who recommend the paper to the service's users, and who sign their reviews. The reviews are not indexed by major indexing services. However, the search function on the F1000 web site finds 124,883 reviews (of which 6596 in 2014). This suggests that the service is attracting significant numbers of reviewers and readers, and that it is beginning to take on a significant role.F1000 Prime is complemented, by F1000 Prime Reports—a series of review reports focusing on emerging themes in biology and medicine, which F1000 launched in 2013. At the time of writing, the service has published 682 reports of which 121 in 2014.F1000's business model. The model appears to offer advantages to authors, who benefit from a transparent review process, and the publicity it provides for their work, readers, for whom F1000 reviewers can facilitate the selection of articles to read, and reviewers who receive (limited) public recognition for their work.Taken together, these results are evidence for the viability of Science Open Research. Science Open Research charges authors a fee to take papers that have already appeared on public preprint servers, publish them in a new context, provide a post-publication review, and provide support for reader comments. Although the journal has attracted skeptical commentary . In this system, original research papers addressing a specialist audience (tier 1 articles) undergo normal pre-publication review. Then, in the 3 months following publication, Frontiers records the number of times each paper is viewed and downloaded. Finally, following a quality check by a scientific editor, the authors of the 10% of papers with the most views and downloads, are invited to transform their paper into a “Focused Review” for a more general academic audience. Focused reviews are published in Frontiers “field journals” . Like original research articles, Focused Reviews undergo pre-publication review. At the time of writing, Frontiers has published 30,000 articles, of which 256 “climbed a tier” to become Focused Reviews.The first is Journal of Interactive Media Education (JIME), (http://www-jime.open.ac.uk/) which began publication in 1996, with a review model that mixed pre-publication and post-publication review. In the original JIME process, submitted papers were first submitted to a “private open peer review”—in which authors and reviewers interacted freely using a private website. If a paper was judged to be of sufficient quality it was then published as a preprint, which became available for public community review by interested members of the relevant community. The discussion during the public review was published together with the final version of the paper [information retrieved from an archived version of the JIME web page for 1996–7 , the British Medical Journal (http://www.bmj.com/), Elife (http://elifesciences.org/), and the Nature Publishing Group (http://www.nature.com/).One way of reducing the delay is by instituting a process of BMC Genome Biology accepts only 10% of submitted papers but passes on 40% of the rejected papers to other BMC journals  and Rubriq (http://www.rubriq.com/) is for authors to submit their papers for review by a commercial review service, before submitting them to a journal or before allowing the service to submit the paper on the author's behalf. Peerage of Science and Rubriq have different business models. Peerage of Science receives revenue only from journals and publishers and is free for authors and reviewers, collaborating with a significant number of journals and publishers who welcome links to Peerage of Science reviews in manuscripts submitted to them, and which may use the reviews their editorial decision-making. Examples in the sample include PeerJ, PLOS Biology, and PLOS ONE. Rubriq, by contrast, charges authors a fee, and appears to have fewer collaborations with journals. Both services use a formalized review process, including some kind of “standardized score card.” However, their web sites provide no data about how many authors are using their services. It is safe to conclude that pre-submission review has yet to make a major impact.An alternative approach, proposed by Paper-based journals, with high marginal costs, low page budgets and a subscription-based business model are necessary selective in choosing the papers they publish. The rise of online and Open Access Publishing relaxed some of these constraints. In particular, online publishing and the introduction of author fees made it economically feasible (and advantageous) for online, open access journals to remove restrictions on the number of articles they published and to be less selective in selecting the articles.BMC Medicine  has published only 1127 papers since its foundation in 2003, which 175 in 2014. However, many publishers were less selective. The BMC Series (BMC) for example, has published 94,000 papers.Some of the first Open Access journals adopted highly selective review policies, as testified by their publication record. For example, BMC Series and for journals published by Hindawi are very similar to those issued by high impact subscription journals. However, other journals and publishers made the change explicit.In the early years of Open Access publishing, these shifts in reviewing practice were not reflected in reviewer guidelines. Even today, in fact, reviewer guidelines for journals in the PLOS ONE (http://www.plosone.org/) and in 2007, our own organization, Frontiers (http://www.frontiersin.org/), independently introduced what some authors now call “non-selective” or “impact-neutral review” , F1000 Research (http://f1000research.com/), GigaScience , the Journal of Negative Results in Biomedicine (http://www.jnrbm.com/), OpenBMJ (http://bmjopen.bmj.com/), PeerJ (https://peerj.com/) and ScienceOpen Research (https://www.scienceopen.com). The Hindawi group (http://www.hindawi.com/), while not explicitly embracing non-selective review, also expects its acceptance rates to increase . PLOS ONE states on its web site that its acceptance rate is 69% , Since opening for submissions in 2007, Frontiers has published over 30,000 .There have also been no published studies of the effect of high acceptance rates on scientific quality. If classical review genuinely succeeds in selecting the best papers, one would expect the quality of papers in journals using non-selective review to be lower. This is a topic for future research. What is certain is that the impact of non-selective review is potentially very large. In purely numerical terms, Harvard Business Review (http://hbr.org/) and Kairos (http://kairos.technorhetoric.net/), an open access journal in the humanities that explores “the intersections of rhetoric, technology, and pedagogy” .Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences . Although PNAS maintains editorial discretion over the final choice of reviewers, it requires authors to nominate “three appropriate Editorial Board Members, three members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) who are expert in the paper's scientific area and five qualified reviewers.” In cases where a paper “falls into an area without broad representation in the NAS, or for research that may be considered counter to a prevailing view or far too ahead of its time to receive a fair hearing,” authors may also ask a member of the NAS to oversee the review process . PNAS is particularly important because of the large number of papers it publishes .A number of journals allow authors to play a greater role in reviewer selection—avoiding some of the problems that arise when reviewers are chosen by editors. Probably the most important is es PNAS,  (http://Biology Direct (http://www.biologydirect.com/), which, unlike PNAS, adopts a non-selective review process. Authors for the journal select their own reviewers from among the members of the editorial board, and the journal publishes any paper that at least three members of the board agree to review. Reviewers' comments are signed and published alongside the paper itself. The journal adopts an extremely liberal acceptance policy: papers with critical or negative reviews are still published, though authors are free to withdraw them, ahead of publication , which has been using it since the journal's foundation by anthropologist Sol Tax in 1959. In the original version of the system, allegedly modeled on the participatory decision-making practices of certain native American nations, editors assigned manuscripts to a large number of referees (sometimes more than a hundred) whose comments were communicated to the author(s), who revised their articles accordingly. Reviewers' comments and authors' replies and acknowledgements were published alongside the revised version of the article.One of the oldest, best-established ways of avoiding the problems associated with small numbers of editor-chosen reviewers is so-called “Open Peer Commentary”, a review procedure in which original papers (“target papers”) are published side by side with in-depth written commentary (often 1000 or 1500 words), usually from invited experts in the relevant field, but sometimes from other members of the scientific community. To the knowledge of the authors, the first journal to adopt the procedure was Current Anthropology has a strong reputation, despite the fact that it publishes relatively few articles (1376 articles of which 108 in 2014). It is plausible that the low number of articles is linked to the complexity and cost of the journal's review process.Over time, this system gradually evolved into a more efficient, multiphase system. The revised system, which is still in use  , a traditional paper journal with 5530 publications, of which 264 in 2014. Harnad also founded Psycholquy, an online journal, no longer in operation. Both of these journals adopted a form of Open Peer Commentary modeled on Current Anthropology. An unusual feature of Psycholquy, which was dedicated to psychology and related fields, was the attempt to make the review process extremely fast—enabling authors to engage in an on going conversation with reviewers while their ideas were still fresh  and the Journal of Media Education (JIME), which later abandoned the system, possibly because it only attracted a small number of publications  have conducted experiments to test the concept.None of the journals in the sample uses such a process on its own. However, two—ETAI (no longer in operation) and the Semantic Web Journal has been described earlier in this paper. In both cases, the journals combined classical review by editor-chosen reviewers with community review by users of the journal website. In the case of ETAI, the classical review process followed the community review. In the case of the Semantic Web Journal, the two processes were carried out in parallel.The experience of Nature's experiment lasted from June to December 2006, again combining review by editor-chosen reviewers with a community process. During the experiment, authors submitting manuscripts were given the option of making them available for community review. In this case, Nature published the manuscript on its website inviting public commentary from users, which the editors were supposed to take into consideration, alongside reports from anonymous reviewers, when they made their publication decision. In December 2006, Nature ended the experiment, judging that it had not been a success. Only 5% of authors had opted into the community review process, and only 54% of manuscripts had attracted substantial commentary. Furthermore, most of the comments received were not sufficiently substantial to be useful to editors  posted more than 350 comments, making for a lively exchange. The journal's open review pages on MediaCommons were accessed over 9500 times. Commenters self-identified; a majority were those at tenured rank. Their comments addressed stylistic, historical and theoretical matters, and ranged from passing responses to sustained engagement and challenge. Authorial revisions in response to these comments were meticulous and in several instances very substantial. (…) Along with a core of well-known Shakespeare and media scholars, critics from related fields took note and weighed in thoughtfully, including digital humanities experts. These voices provided an interdisciplinary range and perspective not available in a traditional –” Rowe, SQ has not repeated its experiment. For the moment, community review, while an interesting concept, has yet to acquire a real role in the scientific publishing ecosphere.This report suggests that, in the right conditions, community review can indeed be valuable. However, Anti-Oxidants and Redox Signaling (ARS) —has introduced an unusual review procedure, which the publisher calls “rebound review.” The ARS review process begins with a phase of conventional peer review by editor-chosen reviewers. If the results of the review are negative, authors may then request a second review by recognized external experts they propose themselves. If at least four recommend acceptance of the paper, the editor will consider their reports in deciding for or against publication .Different disciplines have long followed different practices concerning author anonymity during the review process. In the humanities, the arts, and the social sciences, authors are usually anonymous. In the natural sciences, by contrast, there is normally no attempt to conceal authors' identity. Of the 56 channels in the sample that use some form of review, 40 reveal authors' names to reviewers (single blind review); 11 channels, mainly in the arts, the humanities and the social sciences, do not (double blind review). In 2 cases, authors can opt between single and double blind review. As expected, the majority of channels that use single-blind review are in medicine and the natural sciences. Significantly, they include series, publishers, and journals with very large numbers of publications  and IEEE Communications Letters (http://www.comsoc.org/cl)—that use double blind review. Two additional journals—Nature Climate Change (http://www.nature.com/nclimate/index.html), and Nature Genetics (http://www.nature.com/ng/index.html) are running experiments in which authors can opt for double blind review, and an additional journal (Conservation Biology) is reported to be considering the system , the reviewers of rejected papers maintain their anonymity  adopts the opposite rule (authors are informed of reviewers identities but the reviewers names are not published). In many cases, channels that publish reviewers' names also publish their full reports and their interactions with authors. This practice is followed by many important channels that use pre-publication review by editor-chosen reviewers . Yet another set of channels  practice a different form of Open Review, publishing reviewer reports but maintaining the anonymity of reviewers.In classical peer review, reviewers are anonymous. The alternative is some form of “open review” in which reviewer names are revealed to authors (sometimes only authors whose papers are accepted) and  published. 26/57 channels in the sample adopt review processes meeting these criteria. In at least one case  than that of anonymous reviews  to make interaction among pre-publication reviewers a normal part of their review process . Other examples in the sample include one technical journal , one journal in psychology and related disciplines (Psycholoquy), and three channels addressing the humanities . Two  restrict access to the review to authors, reviewers, and editors. The others use public web sites. In all cases, the aim is that reviewers should help authors to improve the quality of their papers through “developmental editing.” In some cases, the interactions are intense. The editor of Kairos reports, for instance, that “thousands of words are written about submissions, and lengthy discussions take place – all to figure out the best content for the journal” , a formal process that determines whether the article under review will be published.The long-term impact of a scientific publication depends on the way it is “evaluated” by the scientific community to which it is addressed, and it is well known that community evaluation often gives very different results from formal peer review. Historically, community evaluation was an informal process that left little trace. Today, however, technology allows part of the process to take part on the web. Informal reader commentary should nonetheless be clearly distinguished from community peer-review  provides users with anonymity. However, other channels and most blogs publish authors' identities. Some commentators have argued that this could inhibit scientists from writing critical comments (Srivastava, One of the channels where these comments were published (The results of the survey indicate a sea change in peer review practices, tightly linked to the Internet revolution and to the emergence of Open Access publishing. Twenty years ago almost all channels of scientific publication used some version of classical peer review. Today, scientific publishers offer authors greater choice. The survey identifies two major trends that are already making a major impact, while simultaneously pointing to other potentially significant developments whose immediate impact is smaller.ArXiv demonstrates that lack of peer review does not automatically signal poor quality.The first major trend is the rapidly growing role of services that dispense with traditional peer review altogether, allowing authors to publish any article that meets minimum standards for publication and relying on the community to evaluate which of the articles published makes a genuine contribution to science. The well-recognized role of PLOS ONE, Frontiers and many other Open Access publishers. While not quite so rapid as review-less publishing, non-selective review guarantees high acceptance rates, virtually eliminates the delays caused when authors are forced to resubmit articles to multiple journals in sequence and provides fewer opportunities for reviewer bias than traditional review processes. It also provides a stronger guarantee of scientific quality than review-less publication, contributes to the quality of papers, and gives authors the credit associated only with peer-reviewed publications. The BMC series, Frontiers, PLOS ONE, and other so-called “mega-journals” or “Series” are growing very rapidly, earning an ever-increasing share of the scientific publishing market. Like review-less publishing, it is clear that there is strong demand for their services.The second trend is the rapid growth in non-selective review, as practiced by Alongside these major trends, the survey also identifies several other potentially important developments. One of the most important is the spread of various forms of open review, which remove reviewer anonymity, in many cases publishing review reports alongside the articles to which they refer. Another is the use of various forms of interactive review, in which editors, reviewers and authors work together to improve the quality of a paper. Yet another is the emergence of formal post-publication review, and the increasing importance of informal, out of channel reader commentary, especially critical commentary targeting high profile papers. For the moment, these innovative forms of review and commentary are restricted to a small number of channels. It is likely, however, that the most successful will be imitated by others, becoming more important than they are today.Of course, none of this implies, that classical peer review is obsolete or that it has lost its role as the “linchpin” of scientific publishing Sen, . In factOne of the strongest findings of the survey is the persistence of enormous differences between the peer review processes used by different disciplines. In physics, mathematics, and astronomy the use of preprint servers is now standard practice. In the life sciences, the social sciences, the humanities and the arts, it is extremely rare. Despite some signs of change, nearly all channels of publication in the social sciences, humanities and arts use double blind review. In the natural sciences, it is the exception. In the life sciences, mega-journals have given an important role to non-selective review. Outside these disciplines, it is almost unheard of.Different processes of scientific publication respond to the real or perceived needs of different stakeholders. The interests of well-known authors in well-known institutions are different from those of more junior scholars; mathematicians seeking to verify a proof need different services than natural scientists who want to establish priority for a new result; the needs of readers trying to keep up with developments outside their field are different from those of experimentalists looking for the latest data and protocols in their own specialty. Researchers in different fields bring with them different values and different practices. Given that none of these differences are likely to disappear in the foreseeable future, the most likely scenario for the coming years is continued diversification, with different review procedures serving different author, reader and publisher needs.impact of the innovations the study describes. Wherever possible, we have cited experimental or observational studies. However, there are relatively few of them, many are more than 10 years old and most refer only to a specific journal or a specific academic discipline. As a result, the survey identified many opinions and hypotheses, but relatively few well-established findings.The survey presented here has many limitations. In particular, the methods used were designed to capture the broadest possible range of review processes, regardless of their quantitative importance. As a result, it is not a statistically representative sample of the scientific publishing ecosphere. The other main limitations concern the Many important claims by innovators have yet to be tested. What are the effects of new review processes on the speed with which articles are published, and on their content and quality? Have they reduced bias against particular categories of author, making scientific publishing more accessible? Have they made it easier to publish replication studies, negative results and hypotheses going against mainstream opinion? Are they more or less effective than traditional practices is detecting scientific malpractice? What has been their effect on the quality of papers accepted for publication? And what has been the effect on readers? Have new publishing practices made it easier or harder for readers to keep up with the latest developments in their own and related disciplines? These are important open questions for future quantitative research.RW conceived the study. RW and PS both contributed to data acquisition and analysis, and to the drafting and final approval of the manuscript. Both authors have agreed to be accountable for all aspects of the work related to its accuracy and integrity.Richard Walker is a part-time employee of Frontiers. Pascal Rocha da Silva is a full-time employee of Frontiers.


Journal of Biological Research-Thessaloniki (JBR) replaced the Scientific Annals of the School of Biology of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki called BIOS in 2004. In these 10 years, more than 850 authors originating from 54 countries have published 280 articles. JBR has been indexed in ISI Journal Citation Reports© (Thomson Reuters), since 2008 (current Impact Factor 0.62). Until the end of 2013, JBR was published by the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki. With the rapidly changing environment of scientific publishing, it was decided that JBR should be transformed into a modern, open access journal. For this transition, the Editors of JBR along with the Administration of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki decided to become partners with one of the world leaders in open access publishing, BioMed Central. Starting from May 2014 (Volume 21), JBR articles will be published by BioMed Central and freely available online at http://www.jbiolres.com/ [JBR (Volumes 1–20) are also freely available at http://www.jbr.gr/ [JBR to publish under a “gold” open access model, which provides immediate open access to all articles published in the journal.Dissemination of scientific results is the milestone of science and the vehicle for transporting knowledge produced in universities and other research institutes to the community. Open access publishing ensures high visibility of content, gives authors copyright of their work, and articles are indexed in freely accessible full-text repositories, in compliance with the policies of numerous funding organizations/bodies –7. Also,JBR consider of great importance is research and publication ethics. This includes data fabrication/falsification/misinterpretation, disclosing of relevant personal or financial interests, plagiarism, and protection of sensitive and confidential data. BioMed Central is a member of, and subscribes to the principles of, COPE (Committee on Publication Ethics) [Another issue that the Editors of  Ethics) , and pro Ethics) .JBR carries the valuable (and variable) lessons learned during its first ten years of life over to a fresh new start brimming with new challenges and responsibilities, as well as opportunities. With an enriched set of article types , the journal now provides additional podia through which authors may communicate their research and ideas in more flexible and exciting ways. Reflecting the broad expertise of the Editorial Board and the philosophy of its Editors, JBR continues on the same track of a multidisciplinary scope within biology. We hope that the broad coverage also incites authors to submit interesting works of an interdisciplinary/integrative nature. Within this general biological scope, the Editors of the journal will publish series devoted to popular topics such as evolutionary biology and molecular ecology.JBR is run by practicing scientists, who are recognized academics that continue to publish and serve as reviewers for other journals. Therefore, authors and JBR staff  share common interests. Neither subsidiaries nor any scientific society endorse JBR. Within this structure the question of novelty in scientific research is fundamental. The criteria of novelty have been hotly debated over the years [JBR does not intend to be defiant of nor enticed by the metric of Impact Factor. As scientists judge scientists, it is useful to keep in mind that scientific progress is mainly incremental and occasionally interrupted by leaps of novelty.he years , more soJBR now enters a new exciting period of wider exposure and rigorous assessment. The Editors of JBR intend to follow the same principles that guided them to date in keeping on a tangent line with scientific progress and ethics of publishing.


Publication forms the core structure supporting the development and transmission of scientific knowledge. For this reason, it is essential that the highest standards of quality control be maintained, in particular to ensure that the information being transmitted allows reproducible replication of the described experiments, and that the interpretation of the results is sound. Quality control has traditionally involved editorial decisions based on anonymous pre-publication peer review. Post-publication review of individual articles took the lesser role since it did not feed directly back to the original literature. Rapid advances in computer and communications technologies over the last thirty years have revolutionized scientific publication, and the role and scope of post-publication review has greatly expanded. This perspective examines the ways in which pre- and post-publication peer review influence the scientific literature, and in particular how they might best be redrawn to deal with the twin problems of scientific non-reproducibility and fraud increasingly encountered at the frontiers of science. The procedures for publication of written works have been elaborated from the time of William Caxton, and, using English, are the world-wide standard for scientific communication. Anonymous pre-publication peer review is recognized as essential for maintenance of the high standards necessary to advance scientific understanding. Over the years, various models for funding the distribution of published information have emerged, and recent advances in computer technologies have greatly reduced costs, and increased the numbers of outlets available for scientific publication. Keeping abreast of emerging concepts and discoveries is becoming increasingly problematic. Since publication is central to advancement in an academic career, and given that specific journals occupy hierarchies of preeminence, largely based on citation index, coupled to a general increase in competition for increasingly restricted funding, unprecedented pressure has been placed on traditional pre-publication quality control Figure . This prPost-publication review is a recent development emerging as a consequence of the technological revolution of the internet. As a concept, post-publication review has been around from the very beginning of scientific publication. Discussion and debate is, and always will be, a central part of the scientific method, its strength being that this allows establishment of consensus, as well as identification of conflicting results and competing ideas. From these, further experiments can be proposed and performed, leading to a more sophisticated understanding of the natural world. Post-publication review also serves to identify and remove flawed data, to correct misattribution, and to provide useful links to information emerging post-publication. Some journals provide opportunities for post-publication review, generally under non-anonymous conditions .1 is a particularly noteworthy example.Given the fact that internet-based communication is essentially free, and that most if not all of the scientific literature is accessible in electronic formats, it is logical that websites have recently emerged that provide anonymous forums for post-publication review. PubPeerDescribing itself as The Online Journal Club, PubPeer provides a website at which scientists can upload anonymous comments concerning published articles, notification of these comments being automatically transmitted to the authors, along with the opportunity to respond. PubPeer states that “The chief goal of this project is to provide the means for scientists to work together to improve research quality, as well as to create improved transparency that will enable the community to identify and bring attention to important scientific advancements.” This site indeed hosts discussions of genuine differences of opinion concerning experimental design or interpretation, of science funding and other policy issues, and of the equitable functioning of pre-publication peer-review. However, a large proportion of the postings center on identification of potential scientific malfeasance within publications.never remain undetected. Machine learning is also not far behind humans in terms of face recognition  aim to restrict obviously inappropriate postings using moderators. Since post-publication review is now widespread across many journalistic outlets beyond science, commenters are generally aware of the forms of unacceptable behavior, including general “trolling” (obnoxious postings designed to upset), “sock puppetry” , identity theft, and use of the “Gish Gallop” (rapid-fire presentation of multiple spurious arguments to overwhelm debate). Finally comments that might be interpreted as libelous are removed. One recent PubPeer thread has discussed the desirability of establishing an editorial board. At present, the arguments in favor of such a board appear to be outweighed by free-speech concerns as well as the value of anonymity. Others are in favor of transparency, arguing that this allows evaluation of the credentials of the commenters, yet at the same time expressing concern regarding the effect of social dominance and stereotypical discrimination . ImportaA final path to post-publication review is that taken by the individual whistleblower , which involves selecting datasets and/or methods of statistical analysis until non-significant results attain significance , and to unwitting co-authors.The political cost of scientific fraud could be disastrous. Particularly in the United States, science has become a political football, having lost traditional bipartisan support as an objective arbiter of the state of the known world. Anything that diminishes the respect that is due to the scientific method would be extremely dangerous.In terms of retraction, the path to publishing contradictory results is not necessarily an easy one , 2013. TThe first, and most important recommendation is a general one. Scientists must recognize and accept the impact of changes to our world driven by our unprecedented ability to derive, manipulate, store, and distribute data. Data privacy is an obsolete concept, and we must adapt to a world through which we move, shedding data constantly for all to observe. Post-peer review is here to stay, and although it may from time to time appear anarchic , its potAnother recommendation is more practical: relative to publication, all primary data should be provided as supplemental files in unmodified form. Guidelines for publication should universally include prohibitions on selective excision and reconstitution of parts of images. Improved handling of statistical issues and experimental design should be implemented. Movement in this direction is exemplified by the Journal of Cell Biology Dataviewer, which provides a location for uploading the original data that supports published papers.Title 21 CFR Part 11 from the Code of Federal Regulations that establishes United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) rules on Electronic Records and Electronic Signatures. Part 11 defines the criteria under which electronic records and electronic signatures are considered to be trustworthy, reliable, and equivalent to paper records .Further along this line is the possible use of federal standards to curate data streams in published papers. In the US, this could well involve The rules in 21 CFR Part 11 were designed with the biotechnology, pharmaceutical, medical device, and biotechnology industries in mind, since these are directly regulated in the United States by the FDA. Electronic records that are 21 CFR Part 11 compliant have an electronic timestamp that defines the signer name, as well as the date and time and the meaning of the signature. The FDA recommends an audit trail for the associated electronic records, to provide certainty that no one else has accessed these records without permission. If Title 21 CFR Part 11 were to be used, data acquisition and manipulation software would have to become compliant with this pipeline. Ironically, this would ensure that electronic records used to generate paper records are reliable, the exact converse of the original reason for establishing Title 21 CFR Part 11!2, and it seems that the worry of losing priority for publication in top journals following publication of a preprint is not warranted. Of course, this approach raises questions of “what constitutes publication” which ultimately will be settled in courts of law.Critical reexamination also is required at the level of pre-publication peer-review, to ensure this process is as transparent as possible, to ensure accountability at the level of the journal editorial boards, and to eliminate persistent suspicions of favoritism during the review process. Publishing the reports of the referees, and the responses of the authors, in the supplemental materials could improve the review process. It would show the extent to which reviewers provided intellectual input, and would also help eliminate sundry additional malfeasances associated with publication, such as h-index manipulation . AdditioFinally, from the preceding discussion, although it is clear that the process of scientific publication is undergoing change that is both revolutionary and evolutionary, and it is unclear as to what might evolve as the preferred form of publishing, we must remember that we work within the public trust. There is increasing political pressure on science, from all directions, to accommodate the unfortunate consequences of anthropogenic activities. We cannot risk, as scientists, being accused of malfeasance in discovery. Thus, post-publication review is something in which all true scientists should fully participate. Furthermore, we should not excuse senior scientists that are found to be complicit in fraud. Given a near exponential growth of scientific productivity across the world, as reflected in the growth of published literature, one can reasonably conclude that everything that can be discovered, will be discovered, likely sooner than anticipated, and without the contributions of any individual. Thus, any scientist is ultimately disposable, whatever their level and qualifications. Elimination of fraud serves the common good both in terms of providing increased efficiency of resource allocation, important now, and providing role models for entering scientists, critical for the future.The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.


Tropical Medicine and Health (TMH), a journal with a 56-year history of high-quality research and one of the most important publications in the field. When I was appointed to the position of Editor-in-Chief in 2014, I wrote in the editorial that “our greatest challenge is to continue to improve the journal in such a way as to provide essential and timely information regarding research in the field of tropical medicine and global health” [TMH papers are read and cited more often by experts in the related fields.It is an honor and pleasure to be able to extend greetings as the Editor-in-Chief of TMH is attracting ever greater attention. The number of accesses and downloads of the papers on the journal website increased 3.9 and 2.6 times, respectively, in 2015, compared to the average in 2013. We also received 46 % more submissions to TMH in 2015 compared to 2013. While this is due in part to our promotion campaign as well as our recent decision to send e-mail announcements to society members right after a paper is published online, we are deeply indebted to all of our authors, reviewers, and readers for their enthusiastic cooperation.TMH. We have taken this opportunity to revise the aims and scope of the journal to incorporate, in addition to traditional tropical medicine, the issue of global health. Global health is health of populations in a global context which can be characterized by a “health issue that concerns many countries or is affected by transnational determinants” [TMH welcomes clinical, epidemiological, laboratory, and policy research physically implemented in non-tropics when related to health issues in the tropics or in a global context.Now I am pleased to announce that BioMed Central is the new publisher of minants” . While tTMH will continue as an open-access publication as part of BioMed Central’s high-quality portfolio of open-access journals. Authors can expect accepted manuscripts to be published online in professionally copy-edited and typeset form within a few weeks of acceptance.TMH. The TMH staff will continue to make their utmost efforts to achieve speedy publication and to provide essential and timely information on high-quality research in the field of tropical medicine and global health. On behalf of the Editorial Board and TMH staff, I look forward to working with you and serving the community.Finally, I would like to convey my cordial request to all our contributors for their continued support of


Toxins, the Editorial Board established an annual “Toxins Best Paper Award”. We are pleased to announce the first “Toxins Best Paper Award” for 2015. Nominations were selected by the Editorial Board members, with all papers published in 2011 eligible for consideration. Reviews and original research articles were evaluated separately. Following review and voting by the Toxins Best Paper Award Committee, the following three papers have won Toxins Best Paper Awards for 2015:Original Research Article AwardBaozhu Guo, Natalie D. Fedorova, Xiaoping Chen, Chun-Hua Wan, Wei Wang, William C. Nierman, Deepak Bhatnagar and Jiujiang Yu *Aspergillus flavus Infection in Peanut through EST and Microarray StrategiesGene Expression Profiling and Identification of Resistance Genes to Toxins2011, 3(7), 737-753; doi:10.3390/toxins3070737http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6651/3/7/737Available online: Mohamed Anwar Bin-Umer, John E. McLaughlin, Debaleena Basu, Susan McCormick and Nilgun E. Tumer *Trichothecene Mycotoxins Inhibit Mitochondrial Translation—Implication for the Mechanism of ToxicityToxins2011, 3(12), 1484-1501; doi:10.3390/toxins3121484http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6651/3/12/1484Available online: The following two research articles will share the award:Review AwardSusan P. McCormick *, April M. Stanley, Nicholas A. Stover and Nancy J. AlexanderTrichothecenes: From Simple to Complex MycotoxinsToxins2011, 3(7), 802-814; doi:10.3390/toxins3070802http://www.mdpi.com/2072-6651/3/7/802Available online: In order to recognize outstanding papers related to biotoxins and toxinology that have been published in Toxins Best Paper Award Committee described the article “Gene Expression Profiling and Identification of Resistance Genes to Aspergillus flavus Infection in Peanut through EST and Microarray Strategies” as “…this innovative study not only sheds light on the infection process, and associated resistance, but represents an excellent starting point for future development of tools to monitor aflatoxins, and improve crops with respect to this widespread fungal pathogen…”. The article “Trichothecene Mycotoxins Inhibit Mitochondrial Translation-Implication for the Mechanism of Toxicity” represents “…an important finding with respect to understanding these widespread toxins…. The study defines a novel mode of action, demonstrating that in addition to cytosolic translation, mitochondrial translation is a primary target of trichothecene mycotoxins.” The review “Trichothecenes: from Simple to Complex Mycotoxins” is “a concise, yet comprehensive, overview of trichothecene mycotoxin biosynthesis and classification”.Members of the Toxins, as well as to the toxinology field in general. On behalf of the Toxins Best Paper Award Committee and the Editorial Board of Toxins, I congratulate the winners for their significant contributions and thank them for choosing to publish their best work in Toxins. In recognition of their accomplishments, both Dr. Jiujiang Yu and Dr. Nilgun E. Tumer will receive a prize of 500 CHF, as well as an opportunity to publish an additional paper free of charge in open access format in Toxins, after the standard peer-review process. Dr. Susan P. McCormick will be awarded the privilege of publishing an additional research paper, with all publication fees waived, in Open Access format in Toxins, after the standard peer-review procedure.These three papers are valuable contributions to Toxins is committed to meeting the needs of the toxin research community by providing useful and timely reviews of all manuscripts submitted, and providing an open access journal for your results. Please consider submitting your work to Toxins, and I look forward to announcing your paper as a Toxins Best Paper in the future.The Editorial Board and Editorial Staff at Editor-in-ChiefProf. Dr. Vernon L. TeshDepartment of Microbial and Molecular Pathogenesis, Medical Research and Education Building, Room 3002, College of Medicine, Texas A&M University System Health Science Center, 8447 State Highway 47, Bryan, TX 77807, USAtesh@medicine.tamhsc.eduE-Mail: Editor-in-Chief of Section “Bacterial Toxins”Editor-in-ChiefFounding Prof. Dr. Med. Florian LangPhysiologisches Institut I, Universität Tübingen, Gmelinstrasse 5, D-72076 Tübingen, Germanyflorian.lang@uni-tuebingen.deE-Mail: Editor-in-Chief of “Marine and Freshwater Toxins”Section Prof. Dr. John P. BerryDepartment of Chemistry and Biochemistry, Florida International University (FIU), 354/332 Marine Science, Biscayne Bay Campus, 3000 NE 151st St., North Miami, FL 33181, USAjohn.berry@fiu.eduE-Mail: Prof. Massimo ReverberiDepartment of Environmental Biology, Sapienza University, Roma, P.le Aldo Moro 5, 00185 Roma, Italymassimo.reverberi@uniroma1.itE-Mail:


The use of regenerative medicine to treat injury and disease offers new hope to cure previously frustrating diseases and conditions. However, commercialization of biologic therapies in veterinary medicine has outpaced the speed of clinical research, and we are at risk of harming the reputation and standing of regenerative medicine before it has been fully optimized and developed. In response to this, international regulation of Veterinary Regenerative Medicine is underway. This highlights the need and opportunity for veterinarians and veterinary researchers to influence the optimal development of this field by working toward standardized approaches and evidence-based medicine.Frontiers in Veterinary Science is to facilitate the timely publication of high-quality research articles in Veterinary Regenerative Medicine and to host discussion about provocative topics in our field. As the first journal with a section focused on Veterinary Regenerative Medicine, Frontiers in Veterinary Science has the opportunity of providing a much-needed forum for these timely topics.The Frontiers journal approach to publication allows a more collaborative environment and enables a more sophisticated discussion about emerging challenges that need to be addressed in our work. My vision for the Veterinary Regenerative Medicine specialty section of Emerging challenges that are relevant to the development of safe and efficacious regenerative therapies for veterinary patients include the proper validation of reagents used in veterinary research, standardization of protocols and nomenclature, and highlighting the limitations as well as clinical relevance of research findings. Furthermore, another challenge to the field is merging complex processes and unique techniques associated with cell culture with a medical field that has established treatments and surgeries that may be used alongside regenerative therapies. This makes optimizing therapeutic approaches more complex, costly, and time consuming in the veterinary medical field where achieving evidence-based medicine is already challenging. Finally, advances in Veterinary Regenerative Medicine should be relevant and available to those studying human disease and basic science if it is to have its most profound impact. The open access format for Veterinary Regenerative Medicine offers a venue for dissemination of information about veterinary therapeutics that can accelerate translational medicine and the concept of “One Health.”In the European Union, the United States, Japan, and other countries, the regulatory framework for the therapeutic use of stem cells for human patients is well established . In conta priori to know whether a therapy will require FDA approval for clinical use.In June 2015, the FDA published guidelines on the regulation of veterinary cell therapy  correlate to any knock-down, knock-out, or down- or upregulation experiments. Without access to genomic knock-outs and with limited availability of predesigned commercially available knock-down reagents, such as siRNA for veterinary species, this process is more difficult and costly. Moreover, it is important to note that Western blots recognize denatured or non-denatured but non-native protein configurations. Secondary, tertiary, and quaternary native structure of a protein might be critical for epitope recognition, and native structure is often important for epitope recognition and effective antibody reagents for flow cytometry and immunofluorescence.Antibody-based assays are exceptionally important in cell and molecular biology research, and this is one area of weakness for veterinary research, since antibody reagents have not been readily available for our species of interest. That being said, the number of reagents that have been tested for cross-reactivity in veterinary species has increased, and biotechnology companies are beginning to see more value in creating equine or canine-specific antibodies due to increased demand. The proper validation of antibodies for an assay is a time consuming and expensive procedure but it is integral to the validity of our research . IdeallyThese difficulties do not obviate the need for validation; they highlight that a cooperative and collaborative approach to reagent validation would be beneficial to the entire field. Some published experiments using antibody-based assays have not been reproducible; the Veterinary Regenerative Medicine specialty section can provide a forum for optimization and validation of antibody reagents. We are including a “Protocol” publication type to aid in the dissemination of the detailed information needed for veterinary researchers to successfully move our field forward.In the human and rodent model literature, much effort has been made to standardize the nomenclature of stem cells, including mesenchymal stromal cells, hematopoietic stem cells, and embryonic stem cells , 14. In Frontiers in Veterinary Science is an open access journal, review articles, editorial commentary, and potentially consortium statements published on this topic could act as a primary source of reliable information available to whomever is searching for information about stem cell therapy for veterinary patients.Furthermore, protocols for stem cell isolation, characterization, and differentiation vary from laboratory to laboratory, and the response of stem cells to those protocols can vary based on both the species and the tissue of origin of the stem cells , 16. We Frontiers in Veterinary Science, we also invite articles and editorials that accompany primary research articles to relate innovative research findings to veterinary clinical practice now and in the future.Regenerative medicine research aims to use the natural machinery in the body to improve the clinical outcomes for various diseases and conditions; however, much of the research needed to develop these clinical approaches can be difficult to interpret for clinicians. Another goal of this specialty section is to provide commentary and review articles highlighting the clinical relevance of recent research publications. Moreover, the open review process we use at Frontiers allows readers to see the reviewers’ critiques, which often highlight where more research is needed before a given treatment is accepted as both safe and efficacious for clinical use. The education of clinicians about the differences between cell therapies or even tissue engineered materials is a critical part of what we hope to do in this specialty section. Potential topics we could focus on include studies or articles that discuss collection of tissues from patients and the use of cell therapies for injection of lesions. At Frontiers in Veterinary Science, this allows basic scientists and researchers studying human disease and basic science to access the veterinary literature, which is often unavailable at universities that do not have a college of veterinary medicine. Publication of high quality Veterinary Regenerative Medicine research and communicating the field broadly may fertilize collaboration and interaction across human and veterinary medicine and science. Also, having all of Veterinary Regenerative Medicine, whether it refers to small animals or large animals in the same specialty section further promotes the concept of “One Health.” The field of regenerative medicine and stem cell biology is growing exponentially, and this trend has now included Veterinary Regenerative Medicine. Taking a broader look at the regenerative medicine field and teasing out literature in non-veterinary publications that relates to veterinary medicine is another potential benefit of this specialty section.Open access journals allow the dispersal of information rapidly and broadly. For Frontiers in Veterinary Science invites high quality primary research articles in Veterinary Regenerative Medicine and stem cell biology for submission, as well as review articles, editorials, cases reports, protocols, and retrospectives. We encourage the Associate Editors and Review Editors to support the mission of the specialty section by using an open, interactive, constructive, and rapid review process to develop and advance articles prior to publication. The last challenge I put forth is the development of Research Topics, which generate focused collections of articles on a specific topic important to Veterinary Regenerative Medicine.In summary, the Veterinary Regenerative Medicine specialty section of The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and approved it for publication.The author declares being on the Scientific Advisory Board of ReCellerate, Inc.


The Journal of Neonatal Surgery (JNS) is now one year old [1]. As the first neonatal surgery journal anywhere in the world, we have done fairly well. We are now proud to present the first issue of the second volume- the anniversary issue. Last year the Journal received 88 manuscripts of which 61 were accepted for publication. The number of submissions is impressive for a fresh journal dedicated to the publication of high quality peer-reviewed papers. Many of authors are still very much attached to the tradition of seeing their papers as hard prints. Old habits are difficult to break, but the electronic print concept is gaining momentum globally. Some authors may also have reservations in publishing their articles in a new journal that is not yet included in PubMed. But we take pride in sharing that JNS is already indexed with many indexing agencies such as Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ), Indexcopernicus International, Google Scholar, NewJour, Open J-gate, Science Central, eDoctoronline, Ulrichsweb, and many more. We are committed to index the journal with Pubmed and Pubmed Central by next year. All the manuscripts submitted from the start would be available through Pubmed and Pubmed central.JNS, unlike conventional hard copy journals, is not circulated in paper format. Hence, the editorial office is not under pressure to produce issues with a certain number of articles for mail delivery to subscribers. Only high quality articles with sound data have been accepted, a policy we intend to continue. The statistics regarding journal viewership are shown in illustration below . A figure of more than 13000 viewers from around the world gives us a sense of accomplishment, though we aspire for improvement. The top five manuscripts that had highest viewership are listed below. We congratulate each of their authors. Raveenthiran V. Release of tongue-tie in neonates. J Neonat Surg 2012;1:15. (1820 views)Reddy KR, Srinivas S, Kumar S, Reddy S, Hariprasad, Irfan GM. Sirenomelia a rare presentation. J Neonat Surg 2012;1:7. (1530 views)Taneja B, Srivastava V, Saxena KN. Physiological and anaesthetic considerations for the preterm neonate undergoing surgery. J Neonat Surg 2012;1:14. (1322 views)Akhtar T, Alladi A, Siddappa OS. Megacystis-microcolon-intestinal hypoperistalsis syndrome associated with prune belly syndrome: a case report. J Neonat Surg 2012; 1: 26. (1104 views)Mitul AR, Ferdous KMN, Shahjahan M, Khan JG. Trans-fistula anorectoplasty (TFARP): our experience in the management of anorectovestibular fistula in neonates. J Neonat Surg 2012; 1: 36. (967 views)I wish to express my sincere gratitude to our reviewers for their valuable time, as well as to our authors and the Journal’s Editorial Board for their most valuable support. The work of the reviewers and the editorial board is invaluable to the authors because it provides independent, objective, and detailed scientific evaluation necessary to impartially accept or decline a paper for publication. Thanks to their unbiased observations and their expanded comments, they have been able to choose the best manuscripts strictly based on quality, originality and significance.We need to curb the menace of duplicate publication (self-plagiarism). I wish to have feedback from our authors and reviewers alike whether we should mandate our authors to declare if their work was submitted to and rejected by some other medical journal(s), although this shall have no bearing whatsoever on the acceptance of their work in our journal.‘Athena’s pages’ and ‘Face the examiner’ have been our very popular sections and a recent suggestion to have the same topic for both the sections in a particular issue is welcome and worth a trial. We plan to add new sections such as Hypothesis, Art pertinent to neonatal surgery, and Resident corner where in trainees would be encouraged to write descriptive review of rare conditions and articles on neonatal surgical nursing.I take the opportunity to thank our founder Editor-in-chief Prof. Afzal Shiekh who set the platform and put me into his shoes in October 2012. Please continue sending us your original research, reviews, views, and lending your valuable support.Source of Support: NilConflict of Interest: The author belong to the editorial team, however the manuscript is dealt independently by other editors and the author did not participate in decision making of the manuscript.


PLOS Medicine Editors support expanding the global benefits of clinical point-of-care information through open access and note challenges that may arise along the way.The  Taking care of patients requires access to recent and reliable information. In high-income settings, what once involved thumbing through the few well-worn reference books that were close at hand  has become a matter of typing a search term or two and selecting the chapter of interest in an online, point-of-care reference. The change reflects a matter greater than simply convenience: with an ever-unfolding evidence base, with ever-increasing specialization and complexity, access to the latest information is an essential part of modern medicine. Surely it is well worth paying for?PLOS Medicine this week [Indeed, point-of-care references, such as DynaMed and UpToDate, are paid for, where individuals and institutions can afford them. But such resources are far from universally available, as James Heilman points out in an essay published in his week . Heilmanhis week , asks whThe idea of collaboratively growing an open access, point-of-care reference has much to recommend it. Publication of the “seed” clinical reviews as peer-reviewed articles in respected journals could provide incentives for expert faculty to prioritize writing them because such widely beneficial work would likely gain recognition among academic institutions that value scholarship as community service. The journal articles’ open copyright license would permit subsequent adaptation of these reviews to “living documents” edited by communities of informed contributors, perhaps along the lines of the Wikipedia model, independently of the original journal. Community contributors could incorporate a wider range of treatment options than the original journal-based review might include, supporting greater choice in shared decision-making and personalized medicine. Open copyright licenses on these “living documents,” in turn, would facilitate universal access and reuse, without a need to negotiate fees or permissions.Of course, contributors to such an effort would face challenges familiar to any author of information intended to guide patient care, regardless of copyright model. Authors must evaluate the best available evidence—including combined analyses when these provide meaningful conclusions—and must be clear about the quality of that evidence. At the same time, they must bear in mind two considerations that practicing clinicians face daily. First, aggregate results, whether from well-conducted individual studies or meta-analyses, provide only a starting place for assessing the best approach for the individual patient, who brings a unique context of preferences, values, and circumstances. Second, making clinical decisions often requires striking a balance between imperfect knowledge and the consequences, to the extent they can be predicted, of inaction. Where the scientific evidence is not of the highest quality, both writers and readers need somehow to make the best of it.PLOS Medicine seems well positioned to contribute by publishing a limited number of clinical review articles. Our colleagues at PLOS Computational Biology have already engaged in an analogous effort, albeit not one focused on patient care [PLOS Medicine’s scope would permit us to prioritize topics of particular urgency in settings where resources to access point-of-care information are limited. For the original journal article, the editors would maintain a strong policy on author and reviewer competing interests.As a professionally edited, open access medical journal with engaged academic editors from the clinical research community, ent care . PLOS MePractical issues remain to be raised and resolved, however. Perhaps the most important concern how to maintain the reliability of a living review. Editors of journals that publish original research can reasonably expect researchers to critique and verify one another’s results both initially and over time, and other interested parties to comment. Facilitating these activities before changes to patient care or policy result is one of the great benefits of open access publishing in medicine. In contrast, clinicians accessing point-of-care summaries, perhaps with limited time or inclination to integrate information from multiple sources themselves, can apply the conclusions of a review to a patient’s living body within seconds of reading the information. Writers and editors of such articles, therefore, must exercise commensurate vigilance in guarding against bias, competing interests, and blurring of the lines between evidence and speculation on ways of applying it. Even in the one-time publication of an article, such vigilance can be demanding; ensuring integrity in a living point-of-care reference would require ongoing processes, which would have to scale with the size of the of collection.It may be that no currently existing model is perfectly suited to the task. A misplaced decimal point, ambiguous phrasing, or a poorly rendered symbol in a clinical reference has the potential for more immediate harm than in most other kinds of published article. Would an all-volunteer effort like Wikipedia’s be adequate to ensure that the tedious but generally indispensable matter of proofreading, copyediting, and compatibility across software and media platforms will reliably occur across large numbers of summaries? Are the community standards around open re-use, which work so well for original research, optimal to ensure that competing interests excluded from a “seed” clinical review do not come to dominate subsequent versions appearing on other platforms? Will clinicians be comfortable relying on patient care information if authors are not prominently identified or may change without notice? Will authors or publishers of “seed” reviews be comfortable relinquishing control of the “sprouts?”PLOS Medicine Editors welcome the opportunity to participate, we feel that no single journal would serve the spirit or the effectiveness of the enterprise by seeking an exclusive role. For the production of freely available, scrupulously well written, and frequently updated clinical reviews to become a part of the future medical world—and there are global clinical benefits if they do—there will be ample work for many hands and organizations in creating, disseminating, and maintaining them.We believe that these issues are ripe for resolution, provided that interested journals, online information resources, potential authors, and funding agencies are motivated to focus their creative attention on them. While the Will communities of clinical experts engage in a sustained effort to maintain open access, point-of-care resources at the high level of quality that patient care demands? We hope so, and we encourage those who feel inspired by the potential scope and benefits of such a project to join forces in building it.


Academic publishers make Murdoch look like a socialist is bound to irritate some of the big academic publishing companies, but the time has come to bring this argument to the attention of all.A leading comment in yesterday’s Guardian, George Monbiot’s provocatively titled and aggressively argued scholarly journals and has been fueled by instant connection to the World Wide Web, thus allowing low-cost distribution of academic material. However, academic publishers have a lot to lose financially.Open Access (OA) is very much a hot topic among researchers and librarians, and this stirring article raises many interesting points. OA refers to unrestricted online access to articles published in As Monbiot states in his piece, “people should be encouraged to understand science and other academic research. Without current knowledge, we cannot make coherent democratic decisions. But the publishers have slapped a padlock and a ‘keep out’ sign on the gates.”Biochimica et Biophysica Actacosts $20,930 per year, but they are by no means the only publishers who put stress on a librarian’s budget.Prices of academic journals are often prohibitively expensive. Monbiot specifically cites Elsevier, a major publisher in the field, as their The article reports that downloading one, single paper can cost up to $42. Recently I have encountered papers costing up to $100. Elsevier, Springer, Wiley and others are laughing all the way to the proverbial bank. As is pointed out, the notorious Robert Maxwell made much of his millions from academic publishing.At least the infamous Rupert Murdoch pays those who write for his publications. Academic publishers receive papers from their writers for free, while the taxpayers funded the research and then have to pay exorbitant costs again to see the results of the research.It is little wonder that many people rely on informal networks of friends and colleagues to collect papers necessary for their research. I have even heard of librarians breaching copyright law in this way.I recall once, in a moment of extreme deadline desperation, asking a librarian in the US if he could, off the record, send me a paper published by someone in their university; however, his reply only just stopped short of threatening me with legal action.Open Access has so far “failed to displace the monopolists”, as Elsevier are still riding high on a 40% profit margin. Monbiot calls for academic publishers’ practices to be brought to the attention of the competition watchdogs and encourages publicly-funded institutional repositories; whereby research articles can be stored and “liberated”.ecancermedicalscience, an open access journal in which it is free to publish, discusses in detail the effect of publishing costs and access to information on cancer research. The results of an EU funded project highlighted the issue of access to subscription journals, the barrier to essential and urgent information that a ‘paywall’ creates, and the need for free access.A recent paper from the European Association of Cancer Research (EACR), which will appear next week in The authors were amazed to find that a quarter of cancer researchers experience difficulty gaining access to what their peers have published, and that they are compelled to spend valuable time tracking down and supplying themselves with such publications without them costing an arm and a leg. It is especially salient for those working independently without institutional library back-up. Publishers frown on them using “informal networks of friends and colleagues” but if a paper can only be downloaded at the all too common cost of $100, what are the realistic options?“Journal prestige” is a big issue, not just for personal ego, but publishing in a high-impact factor, prestigious, journal is pretty much demanded by most institutions for tenure and funding. As the authors say, “if OA can address any remaining concerns over esteem and quality authors will progressively move across to this model”. It will take time for an OA journal to gain the prestige of Nature, but what if Nature were to become open access?“Eighty-eight percent of authors believe that publicly funded research should be made available to be read and used without access barriers” and the statistics speak for themselves. Perhaps publishers fear they’ll suffer like the music industry with, less than legal, rampant digital downloads, but “change is inevitable”.Bearing in mind that this report was requested by the EC, some action is necessary.ecancermedicalscience’s site.The huge number of comments on the Guardian website provides an interesting insight “from the coal face” and offer many starting points for a stimulating discussion and debate also here on