This paper concerns the responsibility of co-authors in cases of scientific misconduct. Arguments in research integrity guidelines and in the bioethics literature concerning authorship responsibilities are discussed. It is argued that it is unreasonable to claim that for every case where a research paper is found to be fraudulent, each author is morally responsible for all aspects of that paper, or that one particular author has such a responsibility. It is further argued that it is more constructive to specify what task responsibilities come with different roles in a project and describe what kinds of situations or events call for some kind of action, and what the appropriate actions might be. The Lancet since the 1950s  share in the responsibility for the scientific misconduct, but we will not discuss such cases here. Nor will the paper concern responsibilities of organizations, such as universities or companies where the researchers are employed.The paper is structured as follows: First we explain our use of terminology. Thereafter we present what is said on authorship responsibilities in some research integrity guidelines. We thereafter discuss what is a reasonable view regarding ‘being fully responsible’ for the research and how it is presented in the paper, partly in relation to the different roles researchers may have in a project. We will also discuss holding everyone responsible for everything about the paper as a means to deter future misconduct. Finally, we discuss how research roles and associated responsibilities can be specified in order to promote a responsible attitude towards the scientific integrity of the paper.Different terms are used in discussions of responsibility, and sometimes different meanings are attached to the same words. ‘Responsibility’ can relate to tasks that have been assigned to the individual, as in “It is your responsibility to analyse those blood samples” (task responsibility). ‘Responsibility’ can also be used to identify someone’s causal role in an event . Furthermore, ‘responsibility’ can be used to mean moral  responsibility or blameworthiness, as in “It is entirely your fault, so you are the one to blame—you are responsible, not anyone else” Dworkin .A term similar in meaning to the latter is ‘culpability’, which is used for moral or legal responsibility, primarily to denote “direct involvement in the wrongdoing, such as through participation or instruction” Arnone . Since cAnother term often used in discussions of moral responsibility is ‘accountability’. We will not try to pinpoint its exact relation to moral responsibility here, but accountability relates to an awareness and assumption of the role of being the one to blame if things go wrong. Still, ‘accountability’ often seems to be used interchangeably with ‘responsibility’. If a distinction can be maintained between  responsibility and accountability, it seems to be the one between being the one whose fault it actually is and being the one who is or should be held responsible. The latter can be decided by convention, while settling the former requires normative analysis. Henceforth, we will maintain this distinction by using the expressions ‘being responsible’ and ‘being held responsible’. In line with what has just been said, one might argue that someone who is not seen as morally responsible for a certain outcome nevertheless should be held responsible—for some other reason than blameworthiness, such as having strict liability according to contract or law.Research integrity guidelines have quite a bit to say about what is expected of authors in terms of contributions and research performance, but much less about the responsibilities of co-authors in cases of scientific misconduct.White paper on promoting integrity in scientific journal publications (CSE According to the Council of Science Editors (CSE), an international organization for science editors, “The ultimate reason for identification of authors and other contributors is to establish accountability for the reported work”. CSE specifies: “Authors are individuals identified by the research group to have made substantial contributions to the reported work and agree to be accountable for these contributions.” Each author is “accountable for the parts of the work he or she has done”. In the CSE ions CSE , wherefrRecommendations for the conduct, reporting, editing, and publication of scholarly work in medical journals, issued by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (henceforth the ICMJE guidelines), and the most influential authorship guidelines to this day, have through their different versions strongly stressed the idea that all authors of a paper should share not only scientific credit for the work but also responsibility for that paper , in its 2017 edition of http://journals.plos.org/plosone/s/authorship): “We expect that all authors will take public responsibility for the content of the manuscript submitted to PLOS. The contributions of all authors must be described.” But if this is what COPE/ALLEA mean, then they should say so.On the account that such specifications are rarely made , there is disagreement between on the one hand the CSE and the ICMJE guidelines and on the other the COPE-supported position statement/ALLEA regarding the responsibility of the individual author. Where COPE/ALLEA requires everyone to assume equal responsibility for misconduct also when only a limited few are actually guilty, the CSE/ICMJE guidelines suggest that those who did it should assume responsibility for it. COPE/ALLEA can perhaps be read as promoting a practice where limitations in responsibility are standardly described in the paper by concerned authors, rather than favouring blaming all authors if the paper is fraudulent. This would be in line with the declaration, for instance, of the journal PLOS One  have proposed that there should be at least one researcher, the guarantor, who assumes full responsibility for the paper. Smith and Williams-Jones (http://www.apa.org/research/responsible/publication/index.aspx): “The primary author assumes responsibility for the publication, making sure that the data are accurate, that all deserving authors have been credited, that all authors have given their approval to the final draft; and handles responses to inquiries after the manuscript is published.” BMJ states in its instructions to authors: “The guarantor accepts full responsibility for the work and/or the conduct of the study, had access to the data, and controlled the decision to publish.” The idea, in short, is to identify someone, or some, with responsibility for “the integrity of the work as a whole”  for the study as a whole—i.e., for the planning, how different parts of the collaboration fit in, who is expected to do what, etc.—no one must assume full moral responsibility for what collaborators do in the project.The Scientist shows that many co-authors might be implicated if they collaborate with quite few fraudulent researchers: together the top eight researchers on the list of most individual retractions of published papers have more than 320 other researchers listed as authors on their problematic papers —instead focus lies on progress in research. While a steady increase in scientific collaboration has promoted development, it could be argued that it has also brought with it an increasing sloppiness regarding ethical standards, by making responsibility more diffuse. The sense that the researcher must take full responsibility has faded, not least because it is no longer practically possible. But that might have led to a deterioration in the attitude towards authorship responsibility altogether. By holding all authors responsible in case of scientific misconduct, the story goes, researchers are pressured to become much more careful about whom they collaborate with—and to set up control mechanisms to reduce the risks of being drawn into bad research practices Offord . This miHowever, the deterrence argument as described here rests on the assumption that overall consequences in fact will be better. If this is not the case, the argument fails. Indeed, there are obvious actual and potential disadvantages with this kind of deterrence. Firstly, if successful, the ends are obtained by causing new wrongs, since innocent researchers will be treated as if guilty of misconduct. From a deontological perspective, this might be unacceptable even if the overall consequences are valuable. Secondly, there is the risk that scientists are provoked into bad behaviour if they perceive practices as unfair—as has been seen in cases of questionable judgements by funding agencies and ethical review committees (IRBs)  in relation to these different situations or eventsThere will be different kinds of responsibilities vis-à-vis research relating to one’s role in the project, but also relating to other arrangements, such as the supervision of a doctoral student. Being principal investigator or member of the steering group might bring a certain set of task responsibilities relating to the collaboration as a whole—and the corresponding moral responsibilities—that go well beyond what members of contributing groups have, while being supervisor to a doctoral student might bring specific responsibilities relating to this role, in addition to those relating to one’s role in the collaboration.There may be many different kinds of situations and events concerning scientific misconduct or suspicion thereof that call for action in some respect. Here are some examples:The researcher obtains direct evidence of scientific misconduct, such as plagiarism or manipulation of dataResults from collaborators look a bit too good to be trueA disproportionate production by the collaborating partner, or the doctoral student/post doc, considering the concerned time period and other obligationsSelective reporting of end-points, in particular if one or more of those originally identified as most important are no longer includedDiscussions or comments in passing regarding data collection, data washing, analyses, etc. where some procedures do not seem quite rightDescriptions by others of procedures, data, analyses, etc., or use of images or graphs, that the researcher finds to be incorrectExaggerations of results or their implications for future research or for practiceMany of the points listed here are no direct evidence of misconduct—an inclusion of an incorrect image in a PowerPoint presentation could be a simple mistake, the descriptions of procedures that were briefly overheard in the cafeteria could be unfair to what was actually done, and exaggerations of results may not be dramatic enough to be correctly described as misconduct. But leaving a series of hints like that unattended could be seen as problematic from the perspective of responsible collaboration, and co-authorship.Responsibilities may shift depending on the development of events. If members of a research group suspect misconduct and therefore inform others, then the responsibility to do something also spreads. It may be the case that someone in a more senior function has a responsibility to monitor events in the lab, yet, if doctoral students come across aggravating information relating to misconduct, the most acute responsibilities lie with them.The appropriate kind of action as a response to recognised or suspected misconduct by collaborating partners will partly depend on local policies. There are, however, some standard alternatives when it comes to reporting incidents: formally reporting the incidents, discussing them with your nearest superior and take it from there, reporting to the nearest superiors of the individuals you suspect, or reporting to the PI of the project, or to someone on the steering group. There are a number of other options besides reporting. For instance, those who are suspicious of others may want to confront them with the questions and accusations first. This would be the best option for e.g. the PI or the nearest superior. Sometimes it might be a good idea to call for a meeting to discuss the issues and try to sort things out, either with all collaborating partners or within a single research group.While of considerable interest to further clarify the specific responsibilities tied to different roles in research collaborations merely sketched here, and provide any such claims with adequate argumentation, a satisfactory approach to responsibility for scientific publication would also have to involve both the scientific journals and the academic institutions. In particular, more work needs to be done regarding the responsibilities of individual universities. Part of this concerns the incentives to publish and how to publish. Another part concerns the attitude and culture fostered at our academic institutions. In order for progress to be made regarding much needed change of unhealthy research environments, concepts like ‘research culture’ need to be concretized, most likely by being divided into more easily handled aspects. Some interesting attempts have been made in this direction (Martinson et al. It is neither fair nor constructive to hold all co-authors on a fraudulent paper responsible for everything about it regardless of their involvement. Neither is it fair or particularly helpful to ascribe such responsibility to some specific individual. We have suggested that it can be much more constructive to specify what kinds of task responsibilities come with different roles in a project and describe what kinds of situations or events call for some kind of action, and what the appropriate actions might be. If part of a well-advertised local or national policy, task responsibilities can be turned into moral obligations.


Retrovirology was amongst the first open-access journals to be established through Biomed Central, instigated by our late Founding Editor Dr. Kuan-Teh Jeang. Since then, in what seemed like a rather daring move to be paper-free, Retrovirology has witnessed the exponential growth of open access journals that have changed the landscape of scientific publishing and communications. As was pointed out by the staff editors in PLoS Biology [Fifteen years ago,  Biology , the inf Biology .Retrovirology.Dr. Kuan-Teh Jeang  was an accomplished virologist and chief of the molecular virology section of the Laboratory of Molecular Microbiology at the NIAID NIH intramural program. Teh was a prolific scientist who authored more than 300 publications before he left us at the tragically young age of 54. Through open access publishing, Teh saw an opportunity to create a platform for retrovirologists to publish their findings in a timely manner as well as actively disseminating these publications to the community. Many of us vividly remember the enthusiastic emails that Teh sent us regarding any news or hot-off the press publications from Retrovirology, Teh pledged to serve our community by providing fast, fair, and responsive editing to all submissions [Retrovirology. Since day one, Teh amassed together an impressive team of Founding Associate Editors to lead this journal, including Mark Wainberg, Andrew Lever, Monsef Benkirane, Ben Berkhout, Masahiro Fujii, and Michael Lairmore. Throughout the years, a number of well-regarded researchers have also joined the team of Associate Editors and Guest Editors in Retrovirology, including Robin Weiss, Persephone Borrow, Ariberto Fassati, J. Victor Garcia-Martinez, Paul Gorry, David Margolis, Monique Nijhuis, Leslie Parent, Klaus Strebel, Francois Venter, Frank Kirchhoff, Marit van Gils, Alexander Pasternak, and Rogier Sanders.From the inaugural digital issue of missions , a philoRetrovirology Prize designed, not as a typical award for lifetime achievement to the most senior researchers, but aimed at mid-career scientists between the ages of 45 and 60—‘arguably the most productive denizens of science’ (as Teh might have put it) [Retrovirology Prize has provided us with an opportunity to honour some of the amazing scientists who have contributed to our community at their ‘mid-career’ stages but who are not yet senior enough to receive the awards commonly given to reflect the end of a career. As one would expect, the Retrovirology Prize has since become a highly sought-after award within our community, and many legends of our time are now part of this unique club of accomplished scientists . The annual deliberation process is often fierce but respectful, and the only constant being that there are more deserving individuals than the single award that we are able to give out each year. In 2005, the first recipient of Retrovirology Prize was Professor Stephen Goff at Columbia University [Retrovirology Prize winners are listed . In recognition of the contribution of Teh to Retrovirology and to commemorate his untimely departure, the Retrovirology Prize was renamed as the Kuan-Teh Jeang Retrovirology Prize in 2015.In 2005, Teh garnered financial support to establish the  put it)  or ‘the  put it) . Joking Retrovirology has grown from a modest journal that was largely driven by Teh, to a point where it is now recognised as a highly respected journal within our community. Retrovirology has witnessed and published a number of manuscripts that have had profound impacts on our field. While it is impractical to list or to recap all of the landmark works that have been published in Retrovirology, we have selected a few of our collative personal favourites to showcase some of the contributions that our colleagues have made through publications in Retrovirology.Throughout its short 15 years of existence, Gila-Gaur and Strebel’s review on HIV Vif and APOBEC proteins ;Descours et al. research manuscript on SAMHD1 HIV restriction in quiescent T cells ;Sebastian and Luban’s research report on Trim5a restricts retrovirus via capsid domain ;Weiss’s review on endogenous retroviruses ;Towers’s review on tripartite motif proteins and cyclophilin A .Some of the most recognised publications include:Work dissecting the relationship between HIV transcription and latency by van Lint et al. ;The series of manuscripts that helped to show that xenotropic murine leukemia virus related virus (XMRV) is not a human pathogen –23;An early study that helped set the tone of using humanised mice to study HIV infection and pathogenesis in vivo by Berges et al. ; andThe potential roles of microRNA in retrovirus related diseases –28.Other timely manuscripts include:Other publication highlights can also be found in the following weblinks .Retrovirology was set up as a journal with a strong molecular virology focus, and we have not published a significant number of manuscripts that have immunological-, clinical or structural biological themes. As we look toward our future, Retrovirology will actively support manuscripts in these areas of retrovirus research that have not been well represented in our publication history.Retrovirology has done many things like this well, but there are still many areas for us to improve on including widening the diversity of our publications. Traditionally, Retrovirology the journal that reflects the breadth of our collective values and commitment to our field.We also plan to increase diversity in our editorial board, authors and readers. In an attempt to better reflect the diversity of the retrovirus community, our current editorial board comprises researchers from most of the retrovirus research-intensive countries. As we don’t yet fully accurately reflect our community this is our aspiration and with the ongoing support from our submitting authors and readers, we are determined to make Retrovirology, Mark Wainberg sadly left us in an untimely manner in 2017 [With the sudden passing of Teh in 2013, Professors Mark Wainberg and Andrew Lever agreed to take on the roles of Co-Editor-in-Chief to lead our journal. Approaching the end of a 5 year term as Co-Editor-in-Chief for  in 2017 . Mark ha in 2017 . Andrew With Andrew’s retirement as Co-Editor-in-Chief from Retrovirology, we are delighted to have one of our original commissioned meeting reviewers in 2004 , ProfessWe have also been proud to support the bi-annual Frontiers in Retrovirology Conference, which has brought together scientists from all over the world to discuss state-of-the-art findings in the field. The upcoming Fall 2020 conference in Prague (to be organized and led by Jiri Hejnar) promises to continue the tradition of outstanding scientific exchange in the field.Retrovirology is no exception to this rule. To remain relevant and important to our loyal scientific contributors the journal must evolve and adapt so that it continues to provide a unique specialist forum for this fascinating branch of science and medicine.In ancient Greece at around 500 B.C., Heraclitus of Ephesus coined the phrase ‘Change is the only constant’,


A Population-based Study of Peripartum Cardiomyopathy in Southern Israel: Are Bedouin Women a New High-risk Group?“ with co-authors Iftach M. Sagy, Leah Shalev, Offer Erez, and Leonid Barski.I am pleased to announce that the winner of the 2018 Maimonides Best Published Original Research Prize is Dr. Louise Kezerle, the first author of the paper entitled, “The award ceremony will be held in due course, at Rambam Health Care Campus, Haifa, Israel. An announcement will be made once the date and venue have been set. The award ceremony will be open to the public.This paper uncovered an increased risk for peripartum cardiomyopathy in Bedouin women. The knowledge that Bedouin women are a high-risk group for this well-known complication of pregnancy has the potential to save many lives.We would like to congratulate the authors for their outstanding research that will have a positive impact on this Israeli community, and inspire original research that impacts diverse, albeit small demographic groups.Determining a winner for this year’s prize was quite difficult. The four judges had to review 12 original research papers published in the past year—all of which were more than excellent. Obviously, only one paper could be selected for the prize; however the judges wished, in this announcement, to express their appreciation for the high quality of all of the submissions.Rambam Maimonides Medical Journal, for the benefit of the worldwide scientific medical community, and look forward to another winner in 2019.The Editorial Board is proud of the accomplishments of this small journal since its launch in July, 2010. We encourage our readership to submit their own papers, particularly review articles and original research, to Shraga Blazer, MDRambam Maimonides Medical JournalEditor-in-Chief, For the Editorial Board


Background:  Preprint servers and alternative publication platforms enable authors to accelerate the dissemination of their research.  In recent years there has been an exponential increase in the use of such servers and platforms in the biomedical sciences, although little is known about who, why and what experiences researchers have with publishing on such platforms.  In this article we explore one of these alternative publication platforms,F1000 Research, which offers immediate publication followed by post-publication peer review. Methods: From an unselected cohort of articles published between 13th July 2012 and 30th November 2017 inF1000 Research, we provided a summary of who and what was published on this platform and calculated the percentage of published articles that had been indexed on a bibliographic database (PubMed) following successful post-publication peer review.  We also surveyed corresponding authors to further understand the rationale and experiences of those that have published using this platform.      Results: A total of 1865 articles had been published in the study cohort period, of which 80% (n=1488) had successfully undergone peer review and were indexed onPubMed within a minimum period of six months since first publication. Nearly three-quarters of articles passed the peer review process with their initial submission.  Survey responses were received from 296 corresponding authors. Open access, open peer review and the speed of publication were the three main reasons why authors opted to publish withF1000 Research.    Conclusions: Many who published withF1000 Research had a positive experience and indicated that they would publish again with this same platform in the future.  Nevertheless, there remained some concerns about the peer review process and the quality of the articles that were published. AcceleratingScienceandPublication inbiology). The survey revealed that for their most recent published article, about 50% of the authors surveyed (132/259) submitted their article to two or more journals, with 7% (18/259) submitting to five or more [http://asapbio.org/peer-review/survey]. This process can result in a substantial delay in research findings entering the public domain. Traditionally, authors have not been able to add such research findings to their curriculum vitae and/or grant applications. In some scientific fields such as pandemics or humanitarian emergencies, the time to deliver research findings may be as equally as important as research quality, and may be critical to health care provision.The conventional method of journal publication involves manuscript submission, peer review and editorial oversight, revision and publication. While this process is presumed to ensure the scientific integrity of the research undertaken, the availability of the research findings entering the public domain may take several months or even years depending on factors such as a journal editors decision to publish or reject an article, peer reviewer availability or a journal’s publication frequency. The efficiency of peer review was underlined in a recent peer review survey conducted in 2018 by ASAPbio ), now endorsing the use of preprint servers, particularly for grant applications . The registered reported publishing format is currently being used by over 100 journals.However, due to lack of peer review, preprint servers in a life sciences setting have been criticised as they may lack quality and subsequently have the potential to report flawed research which may harm patientsF1000 Research is an example of an alternative ‘platform’ which offers the advantages of a preprint server in terms of immediate publishing on a variety of research article types linked to biomedical research, with the added advantage of post-publication open peer review. Once peer review is complete  the article is subsequently indexed in a bibliographic database such asPubMed. F1000 Research has published over 2000 articles since its inception in 2012. Little is known about who, and the reasons why authors publish inF1000 Research. The aim of this study is to provide a descriptive summary of the research that has been published inF1000 Research, and to determine how much of this published research has been accepted for bibliographic database indexing. We also survey authors who have published inF1000 Research to further understand the rationale and experiences of those that have published using this publication platform. As of May 2018,F1000 Research between 13th July 2012 (earliest publication) and 30th November 2017. A data extraction form was developed and piloted on the first page of 20 listed publications. For each article, the following information was extracted; article type, the year of publication, funding sources, the country of the first listed corresponding author and the peer review status. The peer review status for all articles was last verified on May 30th 2018, i.e. six months after the last published article in the study cohort. At the same time, we also checked whether articles were indexed on the bibliographic database,PubMed.We studied a cohort of all article types that were first published onF1000 Research between the period 13th July 2012 and 30th November 2017Articles published inClick here for additional data file.Copyright: © 2018 Kirkham J and Moher D2018Data associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).F1000 Research. The survey was constructed using the online survey software, REDcap [https://www.project-redcap.org/], and was open for responses between 6th April 2018 and 10th May 2018. The survey questions are available inF1000 Research as rated on a five-point Likert scale ranging from ‘very important’ to ‘not important’. Similarly, on a 5-point Likert scale we asked about the importance of articles being indexed on a bibliographic database, the importance of a transparent peer review process and the likelihood that they would submit future manuscripts toF1000 Research or recommend the platform to others. Participants could also provide free text comments on positive or negative experiences associated with submitting or publishing with the platform. Non-responders were contacted periodically if a response to the survey was not received. The data were presented as the frequency distribution for each level of response. All positive and negative experiences were independently reviewed by both authors and categorized into common topics. Any discrepancies were solved via discussion. With the exception of Editorials and F1000 Faculty Critiques which are published by invitation only and not subject to external peer review, the first listed corresponding author of all published studies in the study cohort were contacted via a personalised email. We removed any duplicate email addresses such that a corresponding author who had published multiple articles were contacted only once. Participants were asked to participate in a short online survey with regards to their main reasons and experiences of publishing withThe University of Liverpool Ethics Committee was consulted and granted ethical approval for this study (Reference 3233). Informed consent was assumed if a participant responded to the survey.F1000 Research between the period 13th July 2012 and 30th November 2017. Just over a third of articles published were research articles  with no more than 10% of the remaining articles published representing a different article type  passed the peer review process with the initial submission, 29% (n=336) after one revision, 3% (n=42) after two revisions, while five articles required four or five revisions.Allowing for a minimum of six months from the first publication of all articles, 80% (1488/1865) had successfully undergone peer review  and were indexed in the bibliographic database,PubMed . For thePubMed . Of theAfter excluding 58 articles that did not undergo peer review , there were 1476 unique first listed corresponding author email addresses (out of 1807 articles) that were targeted in the survey. Notably two authors were listed as the same corresponding author on 18 (Germany) and 16 articles, respectively (USA/India).Responses to the survey were received from 296 corresponding authors. An exact response rate was difficult to estimate but we approximate this to be between 25–30% given the number of returned survey emails that had invalid and/or expired email addresses or ‘out of offices’ during the period the survey was live. The majority of responders were academic affiliated , while a minor proportion represented non-profit organisations , industry  and government . The remaining 14 represented other entities such as independent self-employed private researchers, consulting agencies, schools and hospitals. There was an increasing trend in terms of the respondents research experience with 7% (21), 18% (52), 33% (98) and 42% (125) out of the 296 respondents representing trainee, early-, mid- and senior researchers, respectively.F1000 Research are presented inF1000 Research, with more than 70% of participants reporting these factors as either important or very important. Linked to peer review policy, the transparency of theF1000 Research peer review system that includes reviewer’s names was rated as important or very important by nearly 70% of respondents (202/295). Of less importance was the recommendation to publish inF1000 Research by colleagues, had previously peer reviewed forF1000 Research and for promotion and tenure. Nevertheless, 80% (237/295) of respondents said they would either likely or very likely recommendF1000 Research to a colleague. The importance of factors that influenced an author’s decision to submit an article toF1000 Research. One theme was linked to promotional activities connected directly withF1000 Research which included fee waivers (n=14), personal invitations to submit an article (n=2) and commissioned calls for specific articles (n=3). In another theme, the reasons were unconnected toF1000 Research but were a result of failures to publish in alternative journals (n=16), reasons cited included; other journals not interested in the type of article/analysis, bad reviews, biased peer review and editorial biases. In a third theme, authors chose to submit toF1000 Research due to specific characteristics of the publishing platform. Characteristics included, accessibility of previous versions of the article and the ability to access and respond to reviewer comments (n=5), ability to be able to publish negative findings and material on controversial topics (n=3), no size limit on articles (n=2), ability to share public datasets (n=1), quality of publication of images (n=1) and good altmetrics (n=1). The remaining ten items related to the fact that authors were intrigued to test out a new publication platform.The respondents listed 58 additional new items relating to three themes that influenced their decision to publish withF1000 Research, their article was later indexed on a bibliographic database after the article was approved following peer review. The 261 corresponding authors who thought this was important listed 198 reasons for this. The most common reason was related to making the article visible and easily accessible (n=81), and ensuring that the article was sufficiently exposed (n=27) to its intended readership. Others stated that indexing enhanced the credibility and quality (n=32) of articles as it was the benchmark that the article had undergone peer review. Article indexing for assessment purposes (n=37) was also seen to be important in terms of the assessment of research impact, assessing scientists (e.g. for promotion), assessing institutes (e.g. the Research Excellence Framework in the UK) and when applying for grant income. Finally, some respondents thought that the indexing of articles was important for personal distinctions (n=21), examples included personal recognition amongst peers, citation counts and the enhancement of personal portfolios. Nearly 90% of respondents (261/295) stated that it was either important or very important that following immediate publication withF1000 Research was related to the peer review process following publication. Authors found the process of nominating and reviewers agreeing to review challenging (n=9) given the strict criteria for selection [https://f1000research.com/for-authors/tips-for-finding-referees], this it was felt led to typically a longer period of peer review (n=12) than most other journals. Some authors also questioned the quality of the reviews (n=9), with the suggestion that author selected reviewers may be biased or reserved in terms of lack of criticism given the public record and naming of reviewers when a platform operates an open peer review policy. A few authors felt ‘trapped’ in the peer review process and felt that once the article was published there was ‘no way out’ if reviewers could not be found or reviewers had stopped providing reviews. Publication fees was seen as major barrier for this publication platform, particularly in some areas of research where funds available for publishing is limited (n=10). The impact of articles published withF1000 Research was also seen as a limitation (n=16), and while this was not necessarily the authors personal concern, the perceived reputation that this would be considered a low-quality publication and poorly cited on a platform with no reputable impact factor were foreseen as issues with peers and within scientific organisations. Three authors provided condemning reviews of the platform and suggested that it ‘provided an easy opportunity to publicly criticise the work of others in an act that constitutes unwarranted bullying’ and were subsequently forced into using the platform to correct and refute the criticisms to protect personal reputation. A number of authors (n=5) also commented that the platform was difficult for editing and writing purposes and was particularly tedious when making a data deposition (n=2).The main criticism of those submitting toF1000 Research, there were also many positive responses with a number stating that this was ‘their best experience in publishing’ with the hope that this publication style becomes ‘dominant in the future’. Based on their experience, 74% (218/296) of the respondents said that they would likely or very likely submit toF1000 Research in the future. The speed and efficiency of publication (n=11) was the main reason that authors felt the experience was positive, while others (n=8) thought the extent and the transparency of reviews was both helpful and important. Some authors also found the editorial staff to be cooperative and professional (n=7) while other benefits included the ease of use of the platform and the standard of the publication. Despite some negative feedback regardinghttp://www.prepubmed.org/monthly_stats/], in yet relatively little is known about them.F1000 Research offers a unique publishing platform, which like preprint servers offer immediate publishing but with the added advantage of post-publication peer review and eventual article indexing on a bibliometric database. The speed of the publication, alongside the open access and open peer review policy were particularly attractive traits to authors who submitted their research to this platform. Having an article indexed on a bibliometric database was seen to be important by the majority of the respondents and this study revealed that 80% of the articles achieved indexing within six months of submission toF1000 Research. Visibility and accessibility of research articles were deemed to be the most common reason for submission. The visibility of publishing research without peer review plays another important role. The peer review for about 15% of the articles had either been ongoing for more than a year or discontinued completely meaning that many of these articles may have contributed to the vast quantity of inaccessible unpublished literature  had these articles been subjected to the standard peer review before publication model. The explosion in the number or preprint platforms and the number of researchers submitting to preprint servers and alternative platforms in the biomedical sciences is rising exponentially . To a large extent this mimics the idea of the already existentF1000 Research publication model. It was clear that researchers from all around the world have published on theIn conclusion, there is undoubtedly and increase in the use of researchers publishing their research on alternative platforms for biomedical sciences, but there still remains a level of dogma surrounding their use by many, and there remains concerns about the quality of the articles published on these platforms.The data referenced by this article are under copyright with the following copyright statement: Copyright: © 2018 Kirkham J and Moher DData associated with the article are available under the terms of the Creative Commons Zero "No rights reserved" data waiver (CC0 1.0 Public domain dedication).Dataset 1: Articles published inF1000 Research between the period 13th July 2012 and 30th November 201710.5256/f1000research.15436.d2083083 Overall This is an excellent meta-research study of the open science platform, F1000 Research, using observational data and survey results.  The results of this study contribute to the shaping of journals’ conceptual framework, which influence their publishing practices, such as the adoption of post-publication peer-review, reducing publication costs, implementing open access policies, and reducing time between submission and publication.  I approve this study for publication, upon addressing the following points: Title The title was a bit confusing grammatically as the “who and why” would require differing conjugation and the “survey of F1000 Research” phrase might need to include “researchers”.  Here is a suggestion for the title:  A meta-research study of the post-publication platform, F1000 Research – who publishes there and why – findings from a review and survey.  Introduction This was good and covered the issue of “waste” in research because of the traditional journal publication system.  I wonder whether there is a dollar figure that demonstrates this waste? I think two other articles might be worthwhile citing in this introduction:1 Aleksic et al2 Tracz et al Methods and results The methods used are scientifically sound and clear. I think the ~one-month response period for the survey could be identified as a limitation of the study, especially given that there was only a 25-30% response rate, and after a few reminders too.  The emails could have ended up in researchers’ spam/clutter folders too.    I have had a look at the data shared.  The excel spread sheet contains the observational data of the articles published with F1000 Research from 13 July 2012 to 30 November 2017.  It might be worthwhile to export an anonymised copy of the survey data from REDCap to share as well. I am wondering why peer review was discontinued for those 36 articles. Discussion This was clear.  I have no further comments.I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. The authors provide an appropriate and needed review of a leading platform in post publication peer review and preprints, F1000. They collect information on the country of origin, the "success" at being formally indexed, and survey authors on their experiences with the process . My critiques below are all modest points for improvement.  "Traditionally, authors have not been able to add such research findings to their curriculum vitae and/or grant applications." The only harm implied by this lag is to the author. This roundabout system is also inefficient for reviewers, journals, and for dissemination to potentially interested readers.  "In some scientific fields such as pandemics or humanitarian emergencies, the time to deliver research findings may be as equally as important as research quality, and may be critical to health care provision." The authors should couch this as a balance between two conflicting needs: speed for potentially urgent information and ensuring that health-related information is of the highest possible quality.  "Open Science Initiative" I am not aware of a formal "initiative". Recommend revise to: "...new emerging options towards publication are being considered as part of the the "Open Science" movement." An additional benefit of Registered Reports is to address publication bias towards significant or novel results. https://blog.f1000.com/2017/10/12/transparency-meets-transparency/  It might be worthwhile to mention that F1000 itself offers the RR workflow.  1Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers2 Altmetric Scores, Citations, and Publication of Studies Posted as Prep3And for the section mentioning the rationale for Registered Reports, "Instead of “playing the game” it is time to change the rules: Registered Reports at AIMS Neuroscience and beyond" In the intro, the following citations would provide a bit more context for the reader  "Non-responders were contacted periodically if a response to the survey was not received." Please provide your rule for re-contact (e.g. once per week until response was received or four contacts were made).  "All positive and negative experiences were independently reviewed by both authors and categorized into common topics. Any discrepancies were solved via discussion." What does this mean? That each free response, positive/negative opinion was scored by this study's authors .  "with no more than 10% of the remaining articles published representing a different article type" Case report was slightly over 10% .  "The majority of articles published received non-commercial funding" Recommend revise to "The majority of articles published reported receiving non-commercial funding..." "Economic status was classified according to the World Bank list of economies (June 2017)" Please provide a specific link to this list. "For the remaining 20% of articles, the lack of indexing was because peer review was incomplete (n=317), peer review had discontinued (n=36) or the article had been removed by authors (n=3)." Does "incomplete" include both articles that received poor reviews and articles that have received 1 or fewer reviews? Clarify the number of articles that received something equivalent to "rejections". I am casually familiar with F1000, perhaps more so than typical but less so than a frequent reader. It is unclear to me if "peer review ongoing" could ever revert to another status. Were there any articles that received multiple reviews that indicated poor article quality? Perhaps provide a bit more explanation of the F1000 workflow in the introduction and also define these categories a bit more precisely.  "29% (n=336), after one revision," There appears to be a math error here, probably should be 23%, but please check. Figure 2, "Recommendation" I think should be revised to "Recommendation by colleague", as all the other titles were self-explanatory (to me), but that one I had to open up the survey to understand what it meant (thanks for providing the survey!). "Authors found the process of nominating and reviewers agreeing to review challenging (n=9)" This sentence seems like you are inferring an opinion by 9 people to the entire author pool. I recommend leading the section "Experiences of those submitting articles to F1000 Research" with opinions that can be reliably noted by larger groups from within your sample, and then mention these small N opinions with appropriate caveats (e.g. "A few authors noted...."). Giving the Ns means you are not misleading anyone obviously, it just reads a bit odd to present this as a common experience. Likewise with the last sentence in that paragraph, "A number of authors ."  "The speed and efficiency of publication (n=11) was the main reason that authors felt the experience was positive" change "main" to "most often noted in the free responses" (if that is what you mean by "main"). "The peer review for about 15% of the articles had either been ongoing for more than a year or discontinued completely meaning that many of these articles may have contributed to the vast quantity of inaccessible unpublished literature  had these articles been subjected to the standard peer review before publication model." This sentence implies that the rest of the articles would have been published elsewhere if not submitted to F1000. I think that is overly optimistic. I would describe that 15% as a floor of that estimate. Also, this sentiment is likely to be met by a cynical reader , that this is a good thing, that many published articles, and certainly many preprints, do not "deserve" to be published. I recommend addressing or acknowledging that sentiment here.  "There was also a general sense that the F1000 Research platform appeared to be ‘modern’ and yet was potentially ‘less attractive to the early career researcher’ because the need to publish in recognised journals with high impact factors is still considered the standard by the vast majority of researchers and institutes to gain promotion and tenure." ‘less attractive to the early career researcher’  Is that a quote from a survey respondent? State that in this part of the discussion, as that could also have come from other sources discussing the pressures on ECRs to publish in more "prestigious" venues.I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. F1000 Research from earliest publication in July 2012 through November 2017, verifying peer review status through May 2018.  They also conduct an online survey in April-May 2018 through email requests to corresponding authors of articles that had been subject to external peer review.F1000 research provides a platform for immediate publishing of research followed by open peer review and, if approved by reviewers, indexing in PubMed or other databases.  In the current article, the authors, who are leaders in the fields of metaresearch and journalology, provide a descriptive summary of the 1865 articles that were published in The results are descriptive and presented in summary format, which seems appropriate to the study design.  No statistical inference is undertaken. A spreadsheet of study-specified characteristics for all 1865 F1000 articles, and survey questions  are provided as supplementary files. The bibliometric analysis appears straightforward. The authors may wish to clarify the following points, most of which pertain to the survey and interpretation of its  results.Methods  1. “All positive and negative experiences were independently reviewed by both authors and categorized into common topics. Any discrepancies were solved via discussion.”  Can you provide more detail on how this qualitative analysis was performed? For example, were the “common topics” pre-defined?  If not, how did you arrive at the 3 thematic categories that you present in the Results?  Especially in light of the appropriately declared author competing interest, and the apparent relevance of the conclusions to the platform on which the authors are publishing the article, further information about how the study methodology may have supported objective interpretation of the qualitative data could strengthen the presentation.Results 2. Thirty-six articles had peer review “discontinued”. Under  what circumstances does discontinuation of peer review occur? 3. Of 1476 unique corresponding author email addresses targeted in the survey, you received 296 responses, representing some 20% of the corresponding authors.  You identify the low response rate as a limitation of the study, but can you comment further on the representativeness of this sample?  Are you able to draw any useful conclusions based on the data you obtained for the full set of articles  regarding the extent to which responders may have differed from non-responders?  If such an analysis is not feasible, more caution would seem appropriate in drawing conclusions on the basis of the survey results.Discussion The authors might clarify their reasoning at several points: 4. Article: “There was also a sense that there was the potential for an article to become caught up in the process, immediate publication meant that there was limited scope to remove or submit elsewhere if peer reviewers could not be found or existing reviewers failed to provide subsequent reviews. While these criticisms may have reflected the experiences of some survey respondents, this process is not dissimilar from the many journals/publishers of standard journals which request names of peer reviewers, and in some instances release articles if peer reviewers cannot be found in a reasonable timeframe.” Comment: If an author believes that an article published prior to peer review in F1000 cannot then be submitted to another journal, that author’s situation would seem different from when a journal rejects an article after peer reviewers cannot be found.  In the latter situation, the author has the option to pursue indexing by submitting the article to another journal.  It’s not clear from this paragraph whether or not authors have this option for articles that haven’t passed peer review in F1000. 5.  While there are some similarities, I’m not sure it’s fair to say that the PLOS partnership with bioRxiv “largely mimics the idea of the existing F1000 Research publication model.”   PLOS is partnering with bioRxiv in a way that other journals may choose to adapt, to complement the traditional journal publishing model by speeding dissemination while maintaining author choice regarding preprint posting and ultimate publication venue. Within this collaboration, bioRxiv does not function as an end-to-end publishing platform like F1000Research. Preprints posted to bioRxiv are not identified as having been submitted to a PLOS journal prior to publication in that journal, and authors are free to submit their posted work to another journal if the PLOS journal does not accept it. 6. Article: “There still remains a level of dogma surrounding [preprint platform] use by many, and there remain concerns about the quality of the articles published on these platforms.” Comment:  It's not clear what you refer to as “dogma." The term seems dismissive, yet your research article identifies a number of reasonable concerns pertaining to preprint platform use.I have read this submission. I believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard.


Perspectives on Medical Education (PME), Academic Medicine, Medical Teacher, and Medical Education reject over 70% of incoming manuscripts. To compete for inclusion in an academic journal, researchers need to be both accomplished scientists and rhetorically skilled authors.Doing good health professions education (HPE) research is hard. Getting that research published is, arguably, harder still. The number of high quality manuscripts submitted to HPE’s academic journals far exceeds the number of pages available. It is not surprising, then, that journals such as Fortunately, there are many publications that offer sound advice to authors, explaining why papers get rejected, –4 and suPME, we have assembled key insights gained from our experiences. While not the definitive list of tips that every journal editor adheres to, our advice reflects the personal experiences, values, and interdisciplinary traditions of our editorial team. In this editorial, we offer our insights in hopes of improving authors’ chances of having their manuscripts accepted for publication in HPE journals.As researchers, authors, and editorial board members for Authors often neglect to communicate the implications of their research for readers outside of their own institution or research team. While the functioning of a new drug could differ relatively little  in different populations, the same is not the case with HPE research. This has at least two implications for editors evaluating research articles.First, if anyone outside of your institution or research team is to benefit from study results, you need to position the study within a broader context and/or a theoretical framework. The importance of theory and transferability to high-quality research has been emphasized repeatedly in our research community –3, 8 butgood HPE research study is not simply one that displays strong methodological rigor. Instead, a good HPE research study also provides sufficient detail about what was done, where, why, and to whom so that the reader can understand the relevance of the findings to their context. Just like theory, the context and conditions of the study may be used as a lens through which the study results are understood and interpreted [Second, a erpreted .good submissions go out for review, and which are desk-rejected because they do not fit with the scholarly conversations the journal is curating. Knowing this, you should clearly signal how your work is relevant to the scholarly conversations taking place in your targeted journal, and more generally within the field around that specific topic [Editors not only judge individual manuscripts, they curate scholarly conversations. This plays a role in determining which of the many ic topic .The scope of a paper’s contribution to that conversation is also important. Papers that focus on a narrow niche may be central to the journal’s mandate or, by contrast, may attract only a small subset of readers. If the paper is focused on a narrow niche, or a very specific local context, you should be clear how it may benefit a more general readership, or consider whether the paper may be better placed in more specialist or local publications. Conversely, a paper with broad appeal must still fit the journal’s mandate, but might attract new readers, especially if it brings into the conversation perspectives from diverse audiences and contexts that may be less frequently included. Indeed, because conversations with a variety of contributing voices produce richer, more robust insights, editors may consider whether a paper presents an opportunity to engage under-represented groups  in scholarly conversations.Health professions educators come together into a broad, inclusive community of researchers and practitioners who engage with their communities in different ways. Editors expect you to determine the message that will connect with your chosen audience, and the most effective way to engage that audience. So, before submitting, you should think laterally—which audience do I want to address? For whom will my message make a difference, by adding something new, changing practice, or influencing the direction of advances?PME’s Show & Tell. If you want to present a new perspective on an educational topic or a new idea to the HPE community, consider PME’s Eye Openers. If you want to share lessons learned from research and/or innovation experiences that didn’t go as planned, consider PME’s Failures/Surprises. Depending on the story you wish to tell, be sure to submit the paper for consideration in the right manuscript category so that you reach your target audience. When in doubt, many editors welcome pre-submission queries from authors to advise on the most appropriate article type and whether their journal could be a good fit for the paper in question.While all academic journals disseminating HPE scholarship publish research papers, there are a myriad of other manuscript types within each journal. Each type appeals to different audiences within our community. For instance, if you are looking to connect with educators who develop and implement educational innovations, consider news value: Does the paper help to move the thinking in our field forward in an important way? Unfortunately, there are no clear-cut criteria for determining a paper’s news value, but there are some common questions that regularly inform this consideration: Is the topic new and relevant for the field? Does the manuscript bring an innovative and/or important perspective to an ongoing discussion? Are the study methods novel and relevant to other researchers? Is the paper giving voice to an underrepresented group or perspective? Is the topic timely ? Is there something in the manuscript that elicits a powerful reaction? You can gauge the news value of your paper by thinking about the audience: Ask yourself, is the message of the paper important enough to get the attention of your busiest colleagues?The excess of submitted papers requires editors’ decisions to factor in considerations other than mere study quality. One of the factors editors must consider is the manuscript’s It can, however, be challenging to read your paper through the news value lens. Often there were very legitimate reasons to do a study that have no direct relation with the potential news value of the resulting paper. Therefore, it makes sense to ask yourself from the start of the research project the news value questions: Who will be my audience? Why will they read my paper? Is the potential readership large enough to warrant publication in the target journal? Will readers cite the manuscript in their own work? Will they recommend it to others? Will it stimulate a new line of research? Will it affect policy and practices?If an editor decides that your manuscript might be worthy of inclusion in the journal, she sends it out for review. The editor must then determine who should be invited to be a reviewer. There are several questions that must be answered by the reviewers, including: Is the manuscript methodologically rigorous? Is it contributing to current aspects of conversations on the topic? Is it relevant to potential readers outside of the author’s local context? To do this, editors will often try to secure three different types of reviewers: a methods expert , a topic expert , and a potential user .Methods: Have you demonstrated an in-depth understanding of the methodology and methods being used in the manuscript? How did you establish rigor? Have you justified your methodological and methods choices and utilized them appropriately?Topic: Who is currently contributing to the conversation on the topic being addressed in your manuscript? How are you adding to this conversation? Are your citations sufficiently current?Other users: Could a researcher or practitioner from a different institution use your findings? What theory have you used to support the transferability or generalizability of your conclusions? Have you established why your findings are relevant to others?Given these different reviewer perspectives, you are well advised to ensure your manuscript addresses all three areas of focus. Some simple questions can help guide you in this work:While finding methods-, topic-, and user-focused reviewers is the ideal, it is an ideal that is hard to achieve. One of the biggest challenges facing editors is finding expert reviewers willing and able to volunteer a high quality review for a manuscript. While there is a large pool of authors vying to be included in the pages of a journal, there are considerably fewer reviewers volunteering to offer peer reviews. Given that, if editors spot problems in the manuscript—e. g., weaknesses in the methods, or faulty logic underpinning the paper’s argument—they may opt simply to reject the manuscript as opposed to sending it out for peer review. If your paper will not stand up to scrutiny, it is best for the editors to conserve the limited resource of peer-review time for those manuscripts that are ready for sharp-eyed peers.A journal editor should never be the first person to review and critique your manuscript. Instead, consider developing a community of peer reviewers for manuscripts, perhaps even engaging in-group peer review yourself. Group peer review allows for the leveraging of individual group members’ skills and experiences, and it fosters faculty development as members learn from one another. Scholars who have piloted group peer review have praised the high-quality feedback that is developed by the group , 11. CriThe prevalence of, and thus concerns about, questionable research and publishing practices is on the rise in HPE . EditorsFor example, salami slicing is the practice of breaking apart a single research study into smaller pieces to increase the number of publications. At first glance, it seems obvious that salami slicing is a practice to avoid. However, re-analyzing datasets can be relevant when engaging in research programs where individual datasets can be analyzed multiple times, through a variety of theoretical lenses, and/or in combination with other datasets. Thus, editors are required to both keep a keen eye out for the unethical practice of salami slicing, but also being aware that analyzing the same data set multiple times is sometimes required in programs of research. Authors can help editors make these judgements. Before writing another paper using the same dataset, ask yourself: Will this contribution be significantly different from others made with this data? Will readers of the multiple manuscripts in the program of research clearly see how this work is novel ?Transparency is key when it comes to questionable research practices. Make the reviewers’ and editors’ jobs easier by addressing research practices upfront in your cover letter and again in the introduction or methods section of the manuscript. In the case of salami slicing, you can explain how the manuscript reports on novel work, how it relates to a different and important research question, how it is related to existing work and is not overlapping or duplicating that work. Cite the previous publications in the program of work so that the editors can confirm that salami slicing was avoided. Candour and clarity on these issues helps editors immensely.We know that by the time you have finished writing your paper, formatted the references, and tamed the manuscript’s word count down to size, you are ready to move on to other projects. However, before submitting, you still need to draft a cover letter. It might be tempting to skip it or to cut and paste chunks of the abstract into letter format, but don’t! For editors and reviewers, the cover letter is the first interaction with your submission. Use this opportunity to make a good first impression by being professional , be concise (keep it to a page or less), ensure grammatical correctness (enlist a trusted colleague as a proof-reader), and adhere to your target journal’s cover letter requirements (check the author instructions).Leverage the cover letter as your first chance to market your manuscript to the editors and convince them why they need to publish your article in their journal. Be specific; describe how your manuscript aligns with the journal’s scope, would be of interest to its readers, and how it expands on current conversations in the field.An editor’s chief responsibility is to come to a well-reasoned, clearly thought-out judgment about the quality and importance of the manuscript they are adjudicating. However, not every manuscript assigned to an editor sits squarely within her area of expertise. Editors often do additional reading to understand all aspects of the submitted work. For example, if she is unfamiliar with your research methodology, she will find an expert reviewer with that expertise. Moreover, she will likely do some background reading herself about the methodology to find out about it, rather than depending wholly on a review. The editor is also likely to look in the journal itself to see if any papers have been previously published using the same methodology because this can be a useful yardstick of what has been evaluated and included in the journal previously. In sum, editors spend a lot of time reading the literature in order to be able to responsibly appraise your manuscript.Likewise, it is to your advantage to be well-read. Since editors engage in considerable periphery reading to better understand and situate manuscripts in the relevant literatures, you too should ensure that you are engaging in such readings, and citing them. One of the best tips for success--for editors and authors alike--is to read copiously and widely.Reviewers of a manuscript often disagree: one will love the manuscript, one will find many serious flaws, and one will be indifferent. This is the reality that editors must negotiate for most manuscript decisions. As a result, most editorial decisions are based on reviewer feedback in combination with the editor’s own appraisal of the manuscript. The editor must make decisions about how much weight she attaches to any reviewer’s remarks and then combine the opinions of all parties to (1) make a well-considered decision about acceptance or rejection of your paper; and (2) highlight which revisions are essential to improve the manuscript . This process of coming to a decision and writing a decision letter requires professional judgment.When you receive editorial decisions, it is easy to focus on the positive reviews and feel that they outweigh any negative comments. It can be frustrating if the editor has rejected your work despite many supportive observations from reviewers. But editorial decisions are not taken lightly. When you receive negative feedback about your manuscript, let the news sit with you for a few days before making revisions or submitting the work to a new journal. Ask others who are not involved with the paper to interpret the instructions from the editor and reviewers. Take into consideration that in some cultures , reviewers tend to wrap their critical comments with supportive and polite remarks. A reviewer’s remarks can have different connotations, depending on the reviewer’s culture.When an editor asks for revisions, consider that request carefully and do the work the editor asks of you. A ‘major revision’ should be taken seriously and requires you to engage in and demonstrate major work on your paper.Volunteering to be a peer reviewer is an excellent way to become a better author. Editors endeavour to provide constructive feedback in their editorial decision letters, even if the decision is a rejection. In this way, the editor shows authors that she has paid attention to their work and engaged with it thoughtfully. Editors generally use their editorial roles to serve the community, sharing expertise and integrating the feedback provided by reviewers to guide authors with directed critique. This guidance can help you to improve your ongoing research and writing.highly valuable to the reviewer. As a reviewer you learn which of your critiques resonated with the editor, which concerns you missed in your reading, and the reasoning that guided the editor’s final decision. These glimpses into the ways in which editors make accept versus reject decisions offer you insights into what makes for a successful submission.Most academic journals now send reviewers the decision letter given to the authors because this information is Unfortunately, editors have to hand out rejections regularly. Rejections can demotivate you and the editor alike—it is unpleasant for everyone involved. Moreover, a rejection does not necessarily mean that your paper is of poor quality: editors reject good manuscripts for a variety of reasons.Consequently, many of us have zombie papers: manuscripts that contain a good idea or an interesting finding for which you just can’t seem to find a publisher, so it lurches along on your publication ‘to do’ list, never dying and never really coming to life. These manuscripts should not be abandoned, unless hindsight tells you the study was just not designed properly. Often, the feedback from reviewers and editors can help you to describe the good idea more persuasively, or to frame the interesting data more appropriately. Zombie papers can only find publication homes if the authors are willing to treat their manuscripts as objects to be revised and refined over and over again. Too often, authors treat their papers as precious things that should not be sullied by the changes suggested by others. Although you should be passionate about your research and innovations, you are well-advised to be a little hard-hearted about your writing. A little tough love usually improves a manuscript.The decision to accept or reject a manuscript is shaped by a multitude of factors. The tips we provide are subjective and by no means universally applicable since they reflect the opinions, values, perspectives, and research traditions of our team of editors. That said, we suggest that a key lesson for authors to glean from our advice is that methodologically rigorous research is not in-and-of itself sufficient reason for a manuscript to be accepted for publication in academic journals. A good HPE study is not merely about having a great research idea; instead, it is about telling a story that adds something to our general knowledge body. The tips above highlight that considerable effort is needed when researching the relevance of your research project and when placing it within the current body of literature to further the field of HPE. We hope that the advice we offer will help you to successfully publish your research.The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Department of Defense or other federal agencies.


The new year has just begun, and we are still all full of hope and confidence that it will be a good one for you, my fellow readers, and for the world we are living in. However, when we look back at 2017, it is difficult to be very optimistic. We are not sure about you, but we are not totally convinced that mankind has recently succeeded towards making this planet a better place. Discord and bigotry, in an attempt to gain fast and short‐term profits rather than cooperation and sustainable developments, seem to be back again and even stronger than in previous years, on the agenda of many powerful decision‐makers in policy and economy.Global Challenges. Our vision is to mobilize research, debate, and leadership in the global challenges and create a platform for directing and setting the research and policy agenda. This journal started, initiated by the founding editors, with a clear mission: Create a community of researchers, policy makers, practitioners and funders engaged in addressing complex global problems Advance research and enable decision makers to base policy and practice on scientific evidence Encourage multidisciplinary conversations between scientific fields and between scientists and social scientists Articulate the policy and practice implications of primary research Make measurable progress in the mitigation of global challengesNevertheless, we are convinced, more than ever, that there is a multitude of engaged scientists out there who know that it is in our mutual interest to address the global challenges that we are facing together. And this confidence in the ability of scientists and researchers to join their efforts to create solutions for our world enabled us to launch the first volume of this new scientific journal, TableAs editors we certainly need to question if the papers published were in line with this mission, despite the tough circumstances that every new journal has to face. If we look at the highlights of the first volume, we can certainly be happy about our achievements. Several articles are cited already multiple times, we have very good usage numbers, and some papers were taken up by the media quite heavily. Global Challenges has been accepted for inclusion in Web of Science (the Emerging Sources Citation Index), which is an important step for increased discoverability and accessibility.Apart from publishing exciting science, one of the first milestones in the history of a young journal is its inclusion in major indexing services. We are happy to announce that Global Challenges after its very promising start. Thank you to all of those who made this journal a success so far and don't miss out on the chance to gain access to the next volume of Global Challenges. It's open to everyone!With many ideas in mind and fantastic feedback from our board members, authors, and reviewers, we are very much looking forward to further develop


Authors under pressure to publish to meet some academic requirement are one of the most dangerous pressure group which the editors of good quality peer review biomedical journals have to face every day. Their failure to read and follow instructions for authors which are published on every journal website, lack of training facilities in research methodology, medical writing, and low computer literacy rate leads to increased trauma to their manuscripts. The authors must realize that from submission to final publication manuscripts go through various stages i.e. internal review, editor’s triage, similarity index check, formatting, external review, revision of the manuscripts in the light of reviewers comments and suggestions. It all takes time and there is no short cut. They must plan at least for six to eight months from the date of submission to acceptance and publication and avoid getting trapped by predatory journals which offer quick publication on payment. Authors who are under pressure to publish remain the most dangerous pressure group which the editors of biomedical journals have to face every day. Often failure to oblige them as there is no short cut and the whole process takes couple of months and even weeks for initial internal review, most often results in e mails which are not at all palatable to read. Publishing a good quality peer review medical journal with financial and human resource constraints remains a most stressful and frustrating job and the problems are compounded in the developing countries.1Recent developments and revolution in information technology while at one hand has made the job of publishing quite easy but at the same time it has also created lot of problems for the editors. They remain under constant pressure as the authors respond to reviewers comments, resubmit revised manuscripts within days and it offers little breathing time for the editors to clear the pending backlog while the new submissions keep on piling.3The authors must understand that it is in their own interest that they must carefully read and follow the instructions for authors of the journal to which they intend to submit their manuscript. Look at some of the published papers on its website and try to religiously follow its format. It is also important to look at what type of manuscripts that particular journal accepts. High rejection rate by any journal does not reflect its high standard because the editors have their own priorities while doing initial screening and triage accepting papers for further processing. They most often go for good quality research, innovative procedures, epidemiology studies, Randomized Control Trials, Systemic Reviews or rare case reports etc., Anything which ensures and attracts greater readership and also has more chances of citations thereby improving the Impact Factor of the journal is most often preferred. At a particular time if a general medical journals gets too many submissions in a particular specialty, it is quite likely that not all of them will be accepted for publication despite the fact that they may be good quality research work.Since we follow an author friendly policy, sometime ago just to help the authors, we provided them an opportunity of fast track processing of the manuscripts to those who intend to appear in fellowship examination of CPSP or have a requirement of publication before they can defend their PhD thesis by paying fast track processing fee. However, at times there is a tendency on the part of authors to misuse this facility. They generally think that by just paying fast track processing fee, they will succeed in faster publication which is not the case. We now ask them to justify, give reasons why they wish to get it processed on fast track and prove that they have genuine reasons. Just applying for an academic position or promotion to next higher academic positions are not considered genuine reasons for fast track processing. When the authors insist that they are prepared to pay for that, they are politely told that we do not collect charity. Our prime objective remains to publish good quality research and not make money.At times the authors try to influence the editor’s decision through various means. “I will be happy if my papers is accepted and published,” I am from brotherly country and hope for a favorable response for early publication” “I am suffering from cancer and cannot wait as my promotion is due”, are some of the tricks they employ to emotionally blackmail and put pressure. Little do they realize that the editors will also be happy only if the manuscripts are of good quality and it will help improve the quality and standard of their journal? Yet another measure adopted by some authors to put pressure on Editors for acceptance and early publication is by sending fast track processing fee or publication charges at the time of submission. They do it despite clear cut instructions on our website not to arrange fast track processing fee or publication charges unless they are asked to do so. For fast track processing, they must seek permission first and find out whether their manuscript can be processed on fast track or not?Sometimes authors are not well versed in computer use, cannot submit manuscripts on journal website, fail to upload the supplementary files, and do not know how to do proof readings and make corrections, fail to follow the instructions while revising the manuscripts and all this leads to further delays in the whole process. It is not possible for the editors to teach the authors all these things which they have to learn themselves. Most authors also lack reading habits and it is not possible to write without reading. Above all it is the careless attitude on the part of the authors which they have to avoid during the whole process starting from literature search, conducting the study, preparing and submission of the manuscript which creates lot of problems not only for the peer reviewers and editors but also for the authors themselves which they must overcome and avoid at all costs.Since regulatory bodies in many developing countries Pakistan being no exception lack in expertise to help, guide, assist and evaluate medical journals, it has multiplied the problems which the editors have to face. We have time again pointed out that instead of offering financial grants to the journals, institutions like HEC should provide training facilities to the editors to help improve their journals. They can be helped to develop journal websites, setting up peer review system, use of manuscript processing, handling software’s like Open Journal System (OJS) or Editorial Manager etc., provide facilities for generating XML files for submission to PubMed Central or helping journals to get Indexed in important databases but so far it has fallen on deaf ears as those in authority were not prepared to work and dishing out money seems quite easy for them.6Some of the unique problems which we face in Pakistan also include categorization of various manuscripts. Though KAP studies, Survey reports can also be original research it however does not carry the same weight like RCTs which is the highest level of evidence. However, since the regulatory bodies will give credit to only original articles, editors have no other option but to put all of them in the same category to help authors. Ideally, they should be accommodated under different sub-headings i.e. Original article, Systemic Reviews, RCTs etc.,Gift authorship is a menace and we do not encourage this intellectual corruption. That is why we in Pakistan Journal of Medical Sciences just accept up to four authors and in case of more than four, the authors are required to submit a certificate from the Ethics Committee or Institutional Review Board of their institutions confirming that all the listed authors are eligible for authorship as per latest guidelines of International Committee of Medical Journal EditorsYet another important problems faced by the authors is the regulatory body requirements to publish the manuscripts in Impact Factor journals. At present out of the twelve journals from Pakistan which have got an Impact Factor, only three medical journals enjoy IF which puts them under lot of pressure.12We have been conducting our own publication audit for the last many years and it has been extremely helpful in knowing our strength as well as weaknesses. It also highlights the various challenges we face and helps us to find some practical, feasible solutions.IIIThere has been a slight decrease in the number of submissions during the last year simply because we have now given an option to the authors that if they wish, they can get an opinion on their manuscripts whether they will be acceptable for further processing or not by just sending us an abstract instead of going for complete submissions on journal website. It also saves them from paying the processing fee. Hence, a large number of authors avail this opportunity to get feedback and quick review, hence the decrease in total number of submissions. Statistics for the year 2017 also reveal that as usual large number of submissions from overseas came from Turkey, China, Iran, and Saudi Arabia while most submissions from Pakistan came from major cities like Karachi, Lahore, Rawalpindi-Islamabad and Peshawar as usual. Though we need to promote research culture by providing all the help and facilities to the young researcher’s, medical institutions but at the same time it won’t be fair to put the postgraduates and faculty members under too much stress. The emphasis should be on quality of research and not quantity of papers which has unfortunately also given birth to lot of predatory journals. Publish or Perish needs to be given another look by the authority’s concerned.


The term ‘innovation’ in cardiovascular surgery is not new: there are several publications in national and international journals that show the field’s rich tradition in the development of surgical techniques and medicines, among other products. However, in recent years, information technology has significantly impacted medical practice, and with this, several challenges have emerged, such as the provision and dissemination of health care information.With the constant growth of health research, falsification, plagiarism, and data fabrication have been having a deleterious effect on the results presented. Unethical conduct in research drains the foundations of science which, by their very nature, are built on previous evidences, and if these are false, these foundations are logically weakened. In this context, it is up to the hard work of the editors of major scientific publications to ensure to the researchers and the society the dissemination of papers with reliable and transparent results.. It is important to point out that misconduct does not include honest mistakes or differences of opinion.Research misconduct means fabrication, falsification, or plagiarism in proposing, performing, or reviewing research, or in reporting research resultsScientific integrity consists in sticking to strategies that allow the promotion and development of ethical and honest scientific standards that guarantee objectivity, clarity, reproducibility, openness, and accessibility, the caring duty, fairness in providing references and giving credit, and responsibility to future scientists and researchers.This is one of the main concerns that scientific editors face daily, and this topic has been included in the Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery’s (BJCVS) new instructions.Plagiarism consists in the appropriation of someone else’s ideas, processes, results, or words, without giving the appropriate credits. The authors are responsible for the content and the information in their manuscripts. BJCVS uses the Similarity Check software, which allows to detect similarities in the submitted materials. The manuscripts that have been plagiarized will be rejected, and their authors may incur penalties determined by the journal’s Editorial Board.Fraud consists in inventing data or results and falsifying and manipulating materials, equipment, or research processes, or in altering or omitting data or results, so that the research is not accurately represented in the research record. Fabrication is inventing data or results.. More than two-thirds of these articles were retracted for misconduct in the research, mainly fraud or suspected fraud and publication duplication. In the course of the BJCVS’ processing, if fraud and/or data fabrication is identified, the manuscript will be summarily excluded from the evaluation process and its authors may incur penalties determined by the BJCVS’ Editorial Board.In 2012, a search in the PubMed database found 2,047 retractions between biomedical and life sciences research articles dating back to 1973: (1) similar sample numbers and sizes; (2) identical or almost identical methodology; (3) similar results; (4) at least one author’s name is common to both reports; and (5) little or no new information is made available.Another concern is the redundant publication, which consists of the inadequate division of the study’s results into more than one article . To assist editors, researchers, and readers in general, the BJCVS is based on the five criteria that determine a publication redundantThese are issues that have long been widely discussed by the BJCVS’ Editorial Board, and with the implementation and practice of well-defined policies and actions, we ensure ethical and transparent publications.In addition to the very important information described with great emphasis in this Editorial, we also want to share with our authors and readers a situation that has been a source of uncertainty and often criticism.It is the extension of the Cardiovascular Surgeon’s proper activities regarding the procedures for treatment of the heart and/or great vessels’ diseases.With the advent of new technologies, mainly the less invasive ones, which are performed through catheters and percutaneous introducers, a large part of the surgical treatments has been taken over by different professionals, leaving the Cardiovascular Surgeons out of many techniques, once exclusive of their specialty.Thus, our field has been restricted, since we have been denied the right to assume the new techniques on equal terms.This is a restriction, which we consider improper and unethical, because the professional who had always performed surgical (invasive) procedures on the heart and great vessels would be prevented from treating the disorders of these organs, which were always an integral part of his/her portfolio of action, just because its way of approach has been modified.Logically assuming this new posture, Cardiovascular Surgeons should be prepared to acquire proficiency in new technologies, attending compulsory courses, with rigorous assessments, demonstrating to be able to perform these innovations.This process is in full swing at the Brazilian Society of Cardiovascular Surgery - SBCCV, with great success, following the universal trend..The Residence, now lasting five basic years, and two more years for mastering the different areas of expertise, is one of the longest preparation periods to form what we have denominated the ‘New Cardiovascular Surgeon’This professional will be an expert who will continue to be able to perform conventional surgical procedures, when these were indicated, or use new technologies, when preferred.In China, that presents itself as a country where everything is happening quickly and efficiently, this new professional has already been acting for a long time, in accordance with this new attitude..In 1967, therefore, for over 50 years, Chinese surgeons were already using transventricular procedures, utilizing introducers for closure of interventricular communication (IVC),7 [www.bjcvs.org], you can read two articles, also from China, in which the authors demonstrate closure of interatrial communications  (ASD) with occluders compared to the conventional closure, encouraging surgeons to use the minimally invasive technique.In the BJCVS, from 2019, compares the transventricular surgical procedure, with the percutaneous procedure for closure of Isolated Ventricular Septal Defect (VSD), proving that the first procedure (transventricular) is most efficient regarding time, absence of radiation, and safety.The other articleI hope that, in Brazil, Cardiovascular Surgeons can treat all cardiovascular diseases with the method that is most suitable for each patient, being them able to perform the full range of procedures - invasive, minimally invasive, or transcutaneous -, Applied the best evidence and performed the state-of-the-art procedure.