Integrated results allowed us to verify publishers’ claims concerning their peer-review practices. Our findings reveal that publishers actually control peer reviews by providing assessment criteria to reviewers and sending reviews to authors. Publishers rarely ask for permission to disclose reviewers’ names, but it is obvious to reviewers that this practice of disclosing names is part of peer reviewing. This study also shows that only the names of reviewers who accepted manuscripts for publication are disclosed. Thus, most importantly, our analysis shows that the open-identity label that Polish publishers use is a type of peer-review label like those used in Flanders and Finland, and as such, it can be used to identify peer-reviewed scholarly books.This article discusses the open-identity label, i.e., the practice of disclosing reviewers’ names in published scholarly books, a common practice in Central and Eastern European countries. This study’s objective is to verify whether the open-identity label is a type of peer-review label , and as such, whether it can be used as a delineation criterion in various systems used to evaluate scholarly publications. We have conducted a two-phase sequential explanatory study. In the first phase, interviews with 20 of the 40 largest Polish publishers of scholarly books were conducted to investigate how Polish publishers control peer reviews and whether the open-identity label can be used to identify peer-reviewed books. In the other phase, two questionnaires were used to analyze perceptions of peer-review and open-identity labelling among authors ( Extant studies on peer-review practices have focused mostly on journal articles or grant proposals , 2. GiméThe peer-review process is an important control mechanism in the academic community. The control is realized through academic peers who judge the research quality of manuscripts, grant proposals, and other such texts , 6, 7. HPeer review of scholarly books before publication has become a delineation criterion in various systems used to evaluate scholarly publications. For instance, in Denmark, Flanders (Belgium), Norway, Spain, and Poland, academic books must be peer-reviewed to secure inclusion in performance-based research-funding systems. In Finland, scholarly publications that have been peer-reviewed carry more weight than non-peer-reviewed monographs, chapters, and edited works , 9.Evaluation practices for scholarly books differ across countries and take various forms , 11, 12.https://tsv.fi/en/services/label-for-peer-reviewed-scholarly-publications). Publishers can apply for the right to use the peer-review label, which TSV administrators grant. The publishers agree to a series of requirements concerning the peer-review process, its documentation, and printing of the label in publications. Publishers also must provide detailed information on their websites concerning the peer-review process and state their commitment to TSV label standards. Scholarly publications must be peer-reviewed prior to publication by at least two independent experts, and the process must focus on the manuscript’s scientific quality according to the pertinent field’s standards. The publisher also must send referees’ reports to the authors of submissions. The label can be affixed to monographs, as well as individual chapters and articles in books or journals. The label also is independent of the authority list of publication channels used in the performance-based research funding system, and output from scholarly publishers who do not use the label is considered in the funding scheme. However, the label supports the overall data-collection process by helping researchers and other involved personnel identify peer-reviewed monographs and articles registered with local current research information systems. Indeed, if a publisher uses the label properly, only monographs, chapters, and edited works containing the identifier are reported as peer-reviewed publications. The publishers–mostly learned societies–are entrusted to use the label according to the requirements, with no regular reporting of required documentation to TSV necessary. Compliance with the requirements is investigated only if a complaint is lodged, which may result in a publisher losing the right to use the label. Also, the National Board of Research Integrity may request documentation from publishers in the event of misconduct investigations. Currently, 10 book publishers and 173 journals and book series use the label.The Federation of Finnish Learned Societies (TSV) developed the peer-review label in Finland, i.e., the label for peer-reviewed scholarly publications, to help scholarly publishers indicate which of their published books and articles have gone through peer review  label, is a quality label that the Flemish Publisher Association initiated, and the Group of Educational and Scientific Publishers currently maintains it. The label indicates that a publication has been subjected to peer review by two reviewers in a peer-review process corresponding with international academic standards , 14. WhiThree principal attributes characterize Finland and Flanders’ peer-review labels: (1) a label serves as evidence that a peer review was conducted, (2) the publisher controls the peer-review process, and (3) the publisher archives all documents and reviews.Open identity is a term related to open review as a form of peer review and means that reviewers’ names are published in the books that they review ), and other resources, e.g., academic blogs, emails provided in the journal articles, etc. In the event that we were unable to connect an email address to an author (n = 232), we randomly selected other monographs for the dataset, while maintaining the same sampling method. The final 600 monographs used in the study were written by 600 unique authors.We sent an online survey to the authors of monographs published by 20 publishers from Dataset A. The survey’s objective was to determine whether authors whose monographs were published by these publishers would confirm that the publishers used the peer-review practices that they espoused. We used bibliographical information on the peer-reviewed monographs collected within the Polish performance-based research funding system in Poland . On the We sent an online survey to reviewers of these monographs, which were used to select authors for Dataset B1. The survey’s objective was to determine whether reviewers who reviewed monographs chosen in Dataset B1 would confirm that the publishers actually used the peer-review practices that they espoused.Having bibliographic information on monographs and authors’ names, we consulted the monograph copies (with the overwhelming majority from university libraries) and noted reviewers’ names from the editorial pages of these 600 monographs. Moreover, when the data on reviewers’ affiliations and degrees were available, these data also were written down. On the basis of this information, we searched for reviewers’ email addresses in the same way we did for authors.n = 325), two reviewers (n = 268), or three or more reviewers (n = 7). The mean number of reviewers per monograph was 1.47.Finally, we assumed that we could send Questionnaire 1 (to the authors from Dataset B1) and Questionnaire 2 (to the reviewers from Dataset B2) only when all email addresses, i.e., those of the authors and reviewers of a given monograph, are available. Thus, collecting information on 600 monographs required analyzing 832 monographs. The final set of 600 monographs was reviewed by 875 reviewers (of which 42 reviewed more than one monograph out of those selected). Monographs were reviewed either by a single reviewer . We asked the reviewers about the peer-review process, relations with publishers, and whether publishers asked for permission to disclose their names (see the questionnaire translated into English in Appendix 3). Finally, we received 177 fully completed questionnaires from the authors and 212 from the reviewers. The overall response rate to the surveys was 33% (Questionnaire 1) and 28% (Questionnaire 2) after excluding bounced emails .statement (hypothesis) coding approach ; the name and the reviewer’s scientific degree are some kind of confirmation of the publication quality” (E3).The open-identity label is understood to be a type of certificate that Polish publishers of scholarly books commonly use, even though no legal obligation exists requiring disclosure of reviewers’ names. Some publishers believe that the open-identity label is a prerequisite to acknowledge about a given book as a scholarly publication that could be counted in research-evaluation systems: “Currently, this [disclosing reviewers’ names] results from some formal criteria. A book must be peer-reviewed to be acknowledged as a monograph and be counted in the Polish research-evaluation system. So, we mark who reviewed a book on the editorial page” (E1); “it is an obligation (…) even a good monograph cannot be used for academic promotion when there is no information about reviewers. It is a fundamental condition” (E19).Authors’ responses confirm publishers’ claims, with 170 of 177 authors (96%) confirming that their monographs were peer-reviewed. Seven authors (4%) denied or were unsure whether their manuscripts were peer-reviewed. Six publishers published these seven authors’ monographs; thus, these were outliers and not a general trend. Therefore, it is justified to say that the authors confirmed that open-identity labels are products of the peer-review process.We received emails from nine reviewers claiming that they could not complete our survey because they did not remember whether they reviewed any books for a particular publisher. We informed each reviewer about the monograph in which his or her name is disclosed as a monograph reviewer. Moreover, we attached a photo of the editorial page as evidence. Finally, four of nine reviewers confirmed reviewing given monographs, with two claiming to have reviewed only a Ph.D. thesis manuscript, as they did not know that the thesis was published as a monograph. Three reviewers did not reply to our emails. None of the 875 reviewers to whom we sent emails denied that they participated in the reviewing process.n = 16) stressed that reviewers should be experts in a given field: “These must be researchers who are experts in the field in question” (E190); “a reviewer needs to do research in a given field” (E165).We assumed that Ph.D.-level researchers or experts from the field in which a given monograph was published reviewed the manuscripts. All publishers claimed that they always ask for reviewers who are at least Ph.D.-level researchers. In Poland, two scientific degrees are bestowed: Ph.D.s and the highest degree: habilitation. Therefore, from publishers’ perspective, the most welcome reviewers are researchers who hold a habilitation degree or are full professors. The following statements illustrate this view: “In general, monographs are reviewed by older peers who hold a habilitation, possibly outstanding experts who are Ph.D.-level researchers” (E171); “only researchers with habilitation have the right to review monographs for us" (E194). Most publishers (n = 17) stressed that they seek reviews only from so-called “external reviewers.” This term very rarely was defined, but many of the university publishers understood external reviewers to be reviewers that a given university does not employ: “Reviewers cannot be staff or retired staff members of our university” (E167).In choosing reviewers, publishers also vigilantly watch out for potential conflicts of interest. Most publishers , nine reviewers (4%) self-assessed their qualifications as medium, and only three reviewers (1%) assessed their credentials as low or very low. Reviewers’ responses confirm that publishers pay attention to the fields that reviewers represent and to their expertise levels.All reviewers who responded to our survey held habilitation degrees when they reviewed the monographs we asked about. This confirms publishers’ claims that they ask for reviews only from researchers who hold habilitation degrees. The overwhelming majority of reviewers assessed their own qualifications for reviewing given manuscripts as very high or high ; “in the agreement, we state what are our expectations from reviews (…) reviews need to be comparable, so that it is not the case that someone writes only ‘I like the book; you should publish it’” (E6).The seven publishers that do not give reviewers evaluation criteria believe that they should not influence the peer-review process through evaluation criteria. One of these publishers told us: “We don't have special expectations. I think that well-educated people who hold scientific degrees know what a review should look like” (E36). Some publishers indicate that the reviewers take full responsibility for the reviews: “We leave criteria to the experts, who should be responsible for the scope of a given book” (E56); “in general, from the publisher’s perspective, the author and the reviewers who signed the reviews are responsible for the content of monographs. Therefore, we do not set any restrictions” (E58). Publishers that do not provide evaluation criteria include both the majority of commercial publishers  and a minority of university publishers . Therefore, this is not a feature that could help differentiate between both types of publishers.We compared two perspectives, i.e., reviewers’ responses and publishers’ claims on providing evaluation criteria. 2 = .58, p > .05). Only 49% of reviewers who reviewed monographs for publishers who claimed that they provided criteria responded that they received evaluation criteria. At the same time, a large percentage of reviewers (45%) who reviewed monographs for publishers who claimed that they did not provide criteria responded that they actually received such criteria. This may indicate that within both groups of publishers (claimed providing or not providing criteria) a substantial arbitrariness exists in how they cooperate with reviewers. However, one can also surmise that much potential variation exists in providing criteria, ranging from a general description . Thus, researchers and publishers may interpret this issue differently.As We assumed that publishers using open-identity labels control the peer-review process by sending reviews to authors, making this process transparent for authors. Moreover, reviews allow publishers to reject poor manuscripts, as well as approve and improve good ones.All interviewed publishers claimed that they send reviews to authors. Describing this process, many publishers focused on what is actually sent: “When we get a review, of course, we read it, we analyze it, and inform the author that a review is ready, and we just send it to the author” (E92); “we send to the authors the reviews, conclusions, (and) sometimes there are also comments on the printout of (the) manuscript, which we (send) to the reviewer. So, this whole package is sent to the author” (E87). Other publishers emphasized that reviews serve as a way to help authors refine and improve their manuscripts: “Reviews are sent to the authors because they work with them” (E74). Publishers also stressed that authors should revise manuscripts and provide responses for reviewers: “The author gets the review, naturally without the reviewer’s name (…) and the author must address the reviewers’ comments” (E89).Authors’ responses almost fully confirm publishers’ claims, with 166 of 170 authors (98%) confirming that they received reviews. The other four authors (2%) denied that they received reviews. Three publishers published monographs from these authors: two university publishers and one commercial publisher. Thus, it can be stated that authors’ responses confirm that analyzed publishers control the peer-review process by sending reviews to authors.We assumed that publishers that use open-identity labels ask reviewers for permission to publish their names. Such permission granted by reviewers can be interpreted as conveying manuscript approval.Only four of 20 publishers said they asked for permission, but all analyzed publishers publish reviewers’ names on the editorial pages of monographs. Furthermore, according to these publishers, they actually did not ask for permission, but merely included information about publishing reviewers’ names in the contracts. This practice is illustrated by the following statement: “It is a part of the contract. We do not present reviewers’ names without a contract. We just do not use such reviewers” (E123). Another publisher stressed that asking for permission is important when using personal data: “In the cover letter sent to reviewers, we write–I think it is important because of personal data protection–that the name of (the) reviewer will be presented on the editorial page, so that the reviewer knows about it” (E113). Our analysis shows that publishing reviewers’ names on monographs is not connected with asking for permission to do it. Publishers that do not ask for permission refer to social practices in the academic community. They believe that it is obvious for reviewers that reviewing manuscripts is directly connected to publishing reviewers’ names on the editorial pages. For instance, one publisher said: “We do not ask because it is obvious for us that if a reviewer is an academic staff member and agrees to review, they know that this information about reviewing will be presented in the book” (E177). Another publisher stressed: “When a reviewer agrees to make a review, then he or she agrees to present their names as a mark of the publication quality on the editorial page” (E129).Although most publishers do not ask reviewers for permission to publish their names, the publication of reviewers’ names can be identified as a mark of publication quality. All publishers said that they publish reviewers’ names only when reviewers approve manuscripts for publication. For instance, one interviewee mentioned that when “reviewers accept the manuscript, then we present their names” (E116). Another interviewee stressed that reviewers’ names on the editorial page provide evidence that “a monograph has been accepted for publication, so this monograph is reliable, can be cited, and used as a reference book” (E17).We have verified whether reviewers’ responses confirm publishers’ claims. 2 = .02, p > .05). The vast majority of reviewers said that they had given publishers permission both in the group of publishers that said they obtained permission and in the group of publishers that said they did not ask for permission.Although most publishers said that they did not ask reviewers for permission to publish their names, reviewers' responses indicated otherwise. However, this discrepancy might be due to vagueness concerning how asking for permission is understood by publishers and reviewers. 176 (83%) reviewers said that publishers asked them before publishing their names on editorial pages, whereas only 36 (17%) reviewers said they did not. Thus, publishers’ claims do not correspond with reviewers’ responses. The permission that reviewers provide is not significantly related to publishers’ claims that they ask for permission  and different timing when asking (before or after reviewing).We assumed that publishers using open-identity labels archive documents produced during the peer-review process. All publishers said they archived reviews and other documents . All documents from particular peer-review processes are archived in a dedicated folder for that particular published item. The following statements illustrate this practice: “Each monograph has its own folder (…) In this folder, there are all documents connected with publishing this monograph: from the very beginning up to the publication itself” (E224); “all reviews (are) archived in the dedicated folder” (E237). All publishers claimed that all documents are accessible for at least three years after publishing the monographs, but most publishers stressed that documents are archived forever: “Those folders are not deleted after the publishing process, but they are archived, so it is easy to use them at any moment” (E223); “documents related to publications (are) assigned the A category at our publishing house, which means they are stored for an indefinite period of time” (E214).open-identity labels used for published scholarly books can be understood to be a type of peer-review label. It should be noted that we analyzed only single-authored monographs, but open-identity labels are used for all types of published scholarly books. Furthermore, Poland’s labeling process does not differentiate by scholarly-book type, nor by number of authors.In this paper, we examined whether We studied the editorial and reviewing practices of 20 of the 40 largest Polish publishers of scholarly books, examining publishers’ perspectives on how they work with authors and reviewers.open-identity label in Poland is not formalized like in Flanders and Finland. Nevertheless, these practices are similar, and both types of labels confirm that a given scholarly book was peer-reviewed (Statement 1) and that Ph.D.-level reviewers or other experts from the pertinent field approved the work for publication (Statement 2). The reviewer-approval process before publication–corresponding with Finnish and Flemish standards–is common for all analyzed publishers despite there being no obligation to use it in Poland. Thus, an open-identity label used in Poland can be a delineation criterion for a research-evaluation system, and as such, is a type of peer-review label.Our study reveals that the The lack of a formalized procedure at the national level, like in Finland and Flanders, results in various practices related to controlling the peer-review process. For instance, providing explicit criteria to reviewers (Statement 3) does not always take place. However, Finland’s label requirements state that the review process needs to focus on scientific quality, but it is not clear how publishers communicate this to referees. In Finland and Flanders, the peer-review label–like disclosing reviewers’ names in Poland–is not a formal requirement for performance-based funding distribution or evaluation, but it is closely aligned with it.Generally, manuscripts were reviewed more frequently by one reviewer (54% of manuscripts) than two reviewers or more (46% of manuscripts). This distinguishes the Polish practice from the Finnish and Flemish requirements, in which two reviews are required. Polish university publishers said that when they seek a reviewer, it is always an external reviewer (not an academic staff member of a given university). Thus, this dimension of the Polish practice does not fully correspond with Finnish and Flemish regulations. Nonetheless, Polish publishers always send reviews to authors (Statement 4), as do Finnish and Flemish publishers that use peer-review labels.Publishers in Finland and Flanders must meet various requirements to use peer-review labels and apply them to external organizations that control the use of labels. In Poland, using open-identity labels is a social practice that is treated as an internal part of the whole process of reviewing (Statement 5). Polish publishers assume that reviewers are aware that being a reviewer means also giving publishers permission to disclose the reviewer’s name. In addition, an unwritten rule indicates that only the names of reviewers who accept manuscripts for publications are disclosed. Moreover, publishers publish only manuscripts with positive reviews. Nonetheless, no data are available about rejections of poor manuscripts. All documents related to the review of a given manuscript are archived (Statement 6) and accessible even after a few years. Thus, these labelling elements correspond with Finnish and Flemish regulations.Peer-review labels can elicit various side effects. For instance, Borghart  argues tOpen identities are not perceived necessarily as a welcome direction in opening the peer-review process. Ross-Hellauer et al.  show thaThe open-identity label is common across the Polish publishing landscape for scholarly books . However, on the basis of our study, it is not possible to say how well such practices among the largest, most prestigious publishing houses represent the other end of the spectrum, comprising very small, local publishers that only occasionally publish scholarly books.While evaluation standards and practices usually seem to stem from journal-publishing cultures within the publishing industry, the open-identity label could be an interesting solution that might work in both cultures. However, it should be noted that the practice of open-identity labeling in Central and Eastern Europe’s book-publishing industry was not inspired by open peer review in journal publishing. It is an older practice whose roots have not been studied fully yet. Nonetheless, considering that this practice is visible in Central and Eastern Europe, rather than in Western European countries, one can conclude that it is part of the communist or socialist heritage. Despite the fact that almost three decades have passed from the breakdown of communist rule in Central and Eastern Europe, in academia, some practices remain rooted in past values. In Poland, each document needs to be signed and stamped by a few top-level management officers. For instance, in academia, a standard invoice for printer paper must be signed by six or seven different officers and researchers . Thus, the sender and the content of such a document very often are much less important than the person who countersigned the document. It is not an efficient way of completing tasks, but it allows institutions to blur the lines of responsibility. In light of this argument, disclosing reviewers’ names also can be perceived as part of a similar practice. Book authors can suggest and publishers can choose eminent scholars as reviewers to show that a given book has been approved by scholars who are well-known in the field. Thus, although publishers are the actual gatekeepers, they can shift responsibility for books’ scientific quality to reviewers.The open-identity label also might be understood as an obstacle in selecting the best reviewers. During the Congress of the Polish Academic Publishers in 2018, this study’s primary results were presented by one of its authors. Discussing the findings, some heads and directors of publishing houses suggested that the open-identity label should be transformed into a peer-review label similar to that of Finland and Flanders. The key argument for this was not disclosing reviewers’ names in those countries. In Poland, when reviewers’ names and scientific degrees are disclosed, some publishers do not select the best experts in the field when an expert has “only a Ph.D.,” whereas a book author is a full professor.Most importantly, our analysis shows that an open-identity label can be used as a criterion for delineating peer-reviewed scholarly publications, and as such, it is a type of peer-review label similar to the Finnish and Flemish instruments. Moreover, our findings show that peer review of scholarly books before publication is standardized to some extent, despite the fact that no official regulations exist to administer it.This paper shows that disclosing reviewers’ names is part of actual peer review of scholarly books and that both authors and reviewers have verified publishers’ stated practices. It is worth considering whether it would benefit the Polish open-identity label to formalize the practice, at least to some extent, as in Finland and Flanders. Formalization of the procedure by publishers themselves or learned societies could promote and help improve peer-review standards among publishers that have not yet adopted such sound practices. Nonetheless, peer review of scholarly books in Poland might be perceived as somehow formalized because publishers sign contracts with reviewers, the overwhelming majority of whom are paid for their reviews.open-identity label as a delineation criterion in book-evaluation systems in countries where such labels and systems are operated. We believe that such labels can be used, but only as one of many indicators in evaluation and funding systems that produce scholarly books.In line with our study, we suggest using the Topics and sample questions for interviewsTopic 1.1. Publisher profilePlease specify your publishing profile.What types of books do you publish?In which disciplines does your publishing house specialize?Are you open to publishing scholarly books in all disciplines?Who can publish a book with you?This question is only for university publishers: Are you open to publishing scholarly books by authors who are not part of the academic staff at your university?Topic 1.2. Publishing advisory boardsWhat competencies do editors have?What duties do editors have?Does your publishing house have a publishing advisory board?What are the competencies for publishing advisory board members?What work does the publishing advisory board do?Topic 2.1. Manuscript-submission processShould authors submit book proposals or complete manuscripts?How does a manuscript get submitted and published in your publishing house?This question is only for university publishers: Are manuscripts submitted by departments or by authors themselves?Topic 2.2. Evaluation of manuscriptsWhat scholarly books do you accept for publication?How do you evaluate scholarly books?What criteria do you use to evaluate a scholarly book?Are books assessed differently based on discipline? If so, what are these differences?How do you evaluate whether a book is a scholarly book?Do you provide book-evaluation rules on your website?Do you have policies for dealing with unethical practices?Do you make these policies available on a website?Do you have explicit rules of conduct and consequences within the publishing house when unethical practices are discovered?What percentage of scholarly books is rejected before being submitted for the review process? Can you describe typical rejected books?Topic 2.3. Peer reviewWho reviews book manuscripts for you?How many referees review a manuscript? What criteria are used in such decisions?How do you select reviewers?This question is only for university publishers: Do you employ reviewers who are not academic staff members of your university?What do you expect from reviewers?What aspects of the manuscript do you think reviewers should evaluate?What is the form of the review?Do you use a questionnaire? What does it ask?What features do you think a well-prepared review should contain?What happens to each review’s results? Please describe how you utilize review results.Do you send review reports to authors?What happens if reviews are contradictory, e.g., one is positive and another is negative?Do authors revise their manuscripts in response to reviews?How do you deal with manuscripts that are the basis for academic promotions, i.e., habilitation books and professorial books?What percentage of reviews was negative in the previous year?What percentage of manuscripts was rejected due to negative reviews in the previous year?Topic 2.4. Archiving data on book reviewsDoes the publishing house archive reviews in such a way that they are available for viewing after three years?What data about the peer-review process can be retrieved after three years?Topic 2.5. Reviewers’ namesDo you include reviewers' names in all scholarly books?Where do you place reviewers' names in books?What is the purpose of this information?How do you decide about the order of reviewers if two or more are listed?Do you ask reviewers whether they agree to their names being disclosed in books that they review?Topic 2.6. RejectionsWhat percentage of manuscripts was rejected without sending them to reviewers in the previous year? Can you characterize these books?What percentage of reviews was negative in the previous year?What percentage of manuscripts was rejected because of negative reviews in the previous year?Topic 3.1. Market value of booksWhat role in the decision to publish a scholarly book does its market value, i.e., potential profits from sales, play?Do you offer royalties to authors?Do you offer royalties to reviewers?Do authors need to pay for book publication?If the answer to Question 4 is in the affirmative: What are the sources of authors’ financial contributions?Topic 3.2. Changes in scholarly-book marketI would like to ask three more questions about changes that have occurred in recent years.Have you noticed some change in authors’ attitudes toward publishing scholarly books in your publishing house?Have you noticed any changes in reviewers’ approach to evaluating scholarly books in your publishing house?Have you noticed any changes in the scholarly-book market?Would you like to add something to our interview that I have not touched upon?Questionnaire 1: AuthorsAll questions relate to a monograph you published in the [PUBLISHER NAME] during the years 2013–2016. If you published more than one monograph during these years, please provide answers on the latest one.1. What area of knowledge does your monograph represent ?Please choose one of the following answers❏Natural sciences❏Engineering and technology❏Medical and health sciences❏Agricultural sciences❏Social sciences❏Humanities2. Was your monograph related to academic promotion?Please choose one of the following answers❏Yes❏No3. How was your monograph related to academic promotion?Please choose one of the following answers❏It was the basis for the habilitation procedure❏It was the basis for awarding the title of professor❏Other:4. Did you send a book proposal to [PUBLISHER NAME]?Please choose one of the following answers❏Yes❏No5. Did the publishing house initially assess your monograph’s manuscript before the review process?Please choose one of the following answers❏Yes❏No6. Was your manuscript peer-reviewed?Please choose one of the following answers❏Yes❏No❏I do not know7. Did you provide the publisher with potential reviewers’ names?Please choose one of the following answers❏Yes❏No8. How many reviewers evaluated your manuscript?Please choose one of the following answers❏1❏2❏3❏4❏5 or more❏I do not know9. Have you received any review(s)?Please choose one of the following answers❏Yes❏No10. What form did the review(s) take?Please choose one of the following answers❏Descriptive form❏Questionnaire without descriptive part❏Questionnaire with descriptive part❏Other:11. Did the review(s) contain an explicit conclusion?Please choose one of the following answers❏Yes❏No12. Did you need to revise the manuscript while considering all or some comments from reviewers?Please choose one of the following answers❏Yes❏No13. Did you need to prepare a written response to review(s)?Please choose one of the following answers❏Yes❏No14. Was the manuscript submitted to reviewers for re-evaluation?Please choose one of the following answers❏Yes❏No❏I do not know15. In your opinion, was/were the review(s) reliable?Please choose one of the following answers❏Yes❏No❏Other:16. Please indicate your gender:Please choose one of the following answers❏Female❏Male17. Please indicate the degree/title that you held at the time of publishing this monographPlease choose one of the following answers❏Ph.D.❏Ph.D. habil.❏Professor❏Not applicable❏Other:18. Other comments:Thank you for completing the survey.Questionnaire 2: ReviewersAll questions relate to a monograph that you reviewed for the [PUBLISHER NAME] and was published during the years 2013–2016. If you reviewed more than one monograph from these years, please provide answers on the latest one.1. What area of knowledge does a monograph reviewed by you represent ?Please choose one of the following answers❏Natural sciences❏Engineering and technology❏Medical and health sciences❏Agricultural sciences❏Social sciences❏Humanities2. Was this monograph related to academic promotion of the author?Please choose one of the following answers❏Yes❏No❏I do not know3. How is this monograph related to academic promotion?Please choose one of the following answers❏It was the basis for the habilitation procedure❏It was the basis for awarding the title of professor❏Other:4. How do you assess your qualifications to review this monograph (matching the topic of this monograph)?Please choose one of the following answers❏Very high❏High❏Medium❏Low❏Very low5. How many reviewers evaluated the manuscript?Please choose one of the following answers❏1❏2❏3❏4❏5 or more❏I do not know6. What form did the review(s) take?Please choose one of the following answers❏Descriptive form❏Questionnaire without descriptive part❏Questionnaire with descriptive part❏Other:7. Did the publisher provide evaluation criteria?Please choose one of the following answers❏Yes❏No8. Did the publisher expect an explicit conclusion?Please choose one of the following answers❏Yes❏No9. How did you rate the manuscript?Please choose one of the following answers❏Recommendation for publication❏Recommendation for publication after revisions❏Recommendation for rejection❏Other:10. Did you receive a response from the author concerning the review?Please choose one of the following answers❏Yes❏No11. Did you receive a revised version of the monograph for re-evaluation?Please choose one of the following answers❏Yes❏No12. Did you give the publisher your permission to place your name on the monograph’s editorial page?Please choose one of the following answers❏Yes❏No13. In what form did you agree to include your name on the monograph’s editorial page?Please choose one of the following answers❏Orally❏E-mail communication❏Written contract❏Other:14. Please indicate your gender:Please choose one of the following answers❏Female❏Male15. Please indicate the degree/title that you had at the time of reviewing this monograph:Please choose one of the following answers❏Ph.D.❏Ph.D. habil.❏Professor❏Not applicable❏Other:16. Other comments:Thank you for completing the survey.S1 File(XLSX)Click here for additional data file.S2 File(XLSX)Click here for additional data file.


The form of peer review used by eLife differs from that used by most other journals in a number of ways: for example, editors and reviewers discuss their comments before reaching a decision on a submission, and authors are sent a decision letter that consolidates these comments and outlines what authors have to do to have their manuscript accepted . MultiplThe trial process will be offered to all authors at the 'initial submission' stage until 300 have opted in. The first stage of the new process will be the same as our existing editorial process: each initial submission will be assessed by an eLife Senior Editor, usually in consultation with one or more other editors, to identify work of the highest scientific standards and potential significance. The authors of these papers will be invited to make a full submission that can be sent to external referees for peer review. Currently around one third of initial submissions go on to be peer reviewed, and roughly half of these go on to be accepted for publication. The crucial difference to our current process is that, as mentioned above, the decision to send a manuscript to external referees for peer review will be tantamount to accepting it for publication.Journal Policies; those that do not will be returned to their authors to address the concerns.Under this new approach, once all the reviews have been completed, the editor and reviewers will discuss the manuscript and their comments on it, as happens now, and the editor will draft a decision letter that lists all the points that the authors must address in their response. However, the authors can decide how they respond to these points. For example, they might decide to perform additional experimental work, they might decide to adjust the claims being made in the article, they might respond to certain points in their rebuttal letter, or they might do all of the above. And if serious flaws in the work are revealed during peer review, the authors might decide to withdraw the paper. But in the end, the final choice to publish or not will be made by the authors. All articles will also have to comply with our this blogpost.Once a revision is received, the editor, in consultation with the reviewers if necessary, will assess how the authors have responded to the issues raised during peer review and decide between the following three options: all the issues have been addressed; minor issues remain unresolved; or major issues remain unresolved. The article will then be published, with the editor's assessment appearing in a prominent position at the end of the abstract. The reviewer reports, the decision letter and the author response will also be published. Articles published as part of the trial will be designated Research Communications, to distinguish them from articles that have undergone the usual eLife process. Data on the outcomes of the trial will be collected and we will share our findings over the coming months. More details about the trial are available in The decision to send a manuscript to external referees for peer review will be tantamount to accepting it for publicationWe see several potential benefits to this new approach. The first relates to how it could shift the function of a selective journal, such as eLife, in the context of research evaluation. Rather than the journal name being used as a proxy for the possible quality of an article, the journal becomes a venue for the critical and transparent evaluation of work that is judged to be making important claims for a field. With articles being accompanied by the detailed thoughts of the referees, the authors’ responses to them, and the editor's assessment of the author response, those hoping to use or evaluate the work reported in an article will have much more information at their disposal.The second potential benefit concerns the relationship between authors and reviewers. By removing the gatekeeping role of reviewers, the peer review process can focus on how the work can be strengthened. Reviewers will know that it is very likely that their comments will be published and they will have an opportunity to gain recognition for well-crafted and thoughtful advice. And authors will be incentivized to offer the most robust and careful response because the editor's assessment of their response will be available to all readers. In this way the process builds on eLife’s existing efforts to shift the editorial process towards a constructive dialog among peers, and aligns with our broader mission to foster a more collaborative and transparent scientific culture.A third benefit is related to efficiency. Many selective journals reject a large fraction of articles after peer review, although most of these articles go on to be published after further review in other journals. If the gate-keeping function of peer review is removed and selective journals become venues for the high-quality evaluation of selected work, they would be able to publish more of the content that is submitted to them. Such a change, if broadly adopted, would save a huge amount of time and resources for authors, editors and reviewers by, for example, cutting down on 'reviewer experiments' and reducing the burden on referees caused by manuscripts being reviewed multiple times as they 'bounce' from one journal to another.We cannot predict how authors, editors and reviewers will behave in the trial process, given that we are changing a fundamental part of what they normally do. There will almost certainly be unintended and unexpected consequences, both good and bad, and we will discuss these when we report back on the outcome of the trial. However, given that our aim is to explore how selective journals and peer review can evolve in order to support science more effectively, we are convinced that this trial is worth conducting.


In the line of our predecessors’ work, we aim at consolidating and furthering the international scientific impact of our journal, scientific quality as well as commitment to open science and best research practices being the most important assessment criteria for publication. Psychologica Belgica is an international scientific journal listed by all major publication indexes such as Web of Science, CrossRef, Scopus and Pubmed. We particularly value the submission of research data along with manuscripts and offer several submission formats for research data, either in the form of a specific data or software metapaper or via a dedicated repository such as the Dataverse Network (see https://www.psychologicabelgica.com/about/research-integrity/).As the new Editor-in-Chief, and together with my new team of associate editors, a group of 15 renowned scientists . Psychologica Belgica contributes to positioning BAPS and its members within the international scientific community. I would like to highlight here that regular BAPS members can publish their papers in Psychologica Belgica at no cost (but they need to have been a member of BAPS for at least a 12-month period when submitting their paper in order to be eligible for a publication fee waiver).I would also like to remind or inform our Belgian and non-Belgian readers of the fact that Psychologica Belgica is the flagship publication of the Belgian Association of Psychological Sciences (BAPS) whose mission is to support psychological sciences and scientists in both fundamental and applied fields in Belgium  for the countless hours they devoted in a selfless manner to their editorial activities. Thanks to their hard work and achievements, it is a real pleasure to act as the new Editor-in-Chief of this journal and I look forward to receiving your contributions from all fields of psychological sciences.


Scientific investigation is grounded in the objective pursuit of facts as guided by the scientific method. The process by which new results are vetted and communicated publicly—peer review—should be guided by similar principles. A recent discussion among biologists on Twitter centered on open peer review, defined in this context as the disclosure of the referees’ identities to the authors . One of the many facets of this issue that was discussed was the possibility of author retaliation against a named referee who provided a negative or critical review. This possibility is not hypothetical; participants in the discussion contributed their own real-life horror stories of just this kind of retaliation.Whether in a review, rebuttal or public discussion of another scientist’s work, a guiding principle is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you.Communications Biology does not take a specific stance with regards to signed reviews. While we do not at present offer the option of transparent review (publication of referee reports with or without identification), we believe it is the referee’s choice whether to sign their reviews and thus be identified to both the authors and other referees. However, we do not think that the specific peer review model (open or anonymous) is intrinsically linked to the problem of retaliation against negative reviews. The same goes for the related issue of overly critical, or even hurtful, reviews.The pursuit of knowledge is a messy business. Hypotheses turn out to be wrong, mistakes lead to serendipitous insights and sometimes apparent breakthroughs are later shown to be red herrings. This is all a natural part of the scientific endeavor. Science is also practiced by human beings. Unconscious biases can color even the most objective scientist’s views of their data. This is why all scientists work within a universally-recognized framework—the scientific method—to mitigate the effects of bias on the interpretation of experimental data. But what is the analogous framework for the interpersonal relationships between scientists in the practice and dissemination of science?The problems are not simple, and therefore the solutions are not likely to be simple. Peer review is absolutely fundamental to the practice of science, and yet the incentives for providing thorough, useful and constructive reviews are not well-defined. Journals have a role to play in ensuring fair peer review, but institutions, funding bodies and hiring and tenure committees also have a role to play in ensuring that peer review is properly incentivized. There are no obvious quick fixes.We do however believe there are a few ground rules that can be set to ensure the process is as fair as possible. Whether in a review, rebuttal or public discussion of another scientist’s work, a guiding principle is the Golden Rule: do unto others as you would have them do unto you. We believe peer review is most effective when it is focused on the facts and avoids personal attacks or inferences of motivation. The Golden Rule also prescribes respect, including respect for differences in culture and language. Science is international and a large proportion of scientists have the extremely challenging task of writing research articles in a second language. We urge caution when commenting on grammatical issues, and ask that referees avoid making negative inferences about the quality of the science based on the quality of the English. We also take a dim view of personal attacks in reviewer comments. Our editors reserve the right to return a review to the referee for modification before sending on to the authors. It should also go without saying that any speech that could be deemed derogatory or targeting a specific group, such as a gender or ethnicity, will not be tolerated.Another guiding principle comes from the scientific method itself: one should always aim to disprove one’s own hypothesis. If a reviewer points out potential flaws or weaknesses in the data, crying foul as an author does nothing to further the pursuit of knowledge. As editors, we welcome appeals and discussion of reviewer comments, but our currency is data. Have you taken the referee’s comments to heart, tested their assertions scientifically, and still found that your hypothesis stands? If the referee’s comments are factually flawed, can you provide evidence  or data to support your argument?Nature Research peer review policy page, “We deplore any attempt by authors to confront reviewers or determine their identities.” Reviewers do not make decisions with regards to publication of manuscripts; editors do. If you feel that a referee has been unfair in his or her assessment of your work, the correct course of action is always to contact the editor.Civility and respect for anonymity (when it is desired) are the cornerstones of good peer review. As stated on the Communications Biology, we have been overwhelmed by the positive support of the biological community. In virtually every case, constructive reviews have led to improvements the manuscripts we handle. But to be clear: any instances of author or referee misconduct in the peer review process that are brought to our attention will be treated seriously and in accordance with the wider Nature Research policy on publication ethics. We reserve the right to contact funders, regulatory bodies and the author’s or referee’s institutions in cases of suspected research or publishing misconduct, which includes intimidation of referees. We hope the need to do so will never arise.At Finally, it’s important to keep in mind that although there are many examples of bad behavior in peer review, our experience as editors has shown that the majority of the time, peer review is a productive and positive process. Peer referees apply their expertise, from a necessary distance, in order to help the authors—their peers and colleagues—identify their own blind spots prior to publication. Bias in science will be inevitable as long as scientists remain human, but when carried out with the goal of improving the publication through objectivity and honesty, peer review helps to minimize that bias and bring the facts to light.


Taenia solium taeniasis and cysticercosis. The aim of this systematic review is to assess the scientific evidence concerning the effectiveness and safety of different drugs in preventive chemotherapy for T. solium taeniasis in endemic populations.Preventive chemotherapy is a useful tool for the control of T. solium taeniasis. A comprehensive search was conducted for published and unpublished studies. Two reviewers screened articles, completed the data extraction and assessment of risk of bias. A meta-analysis of cure rate and relative reduction in prevalence was performed. The protocol for this review was registered on the International prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO), number CRD42018112533.A systematic review was conducted of controlled and uncontrolled studies, assessing the efficacy and adverse effects (among other outcomes) of albendazole, niclosamide and/or praziquantel for preventive chemotherapy of T. solium taeniasis  than praziquantel 5mg/kg or single dose albendazole 400mg . These findings have a low certainty of evidence due to high risk of bias in individual studies and heterogeneity in combined estimates. In relation to side-effects, most studies reported either no or only mild and transient side-effects within the first three days following drug administration for all drugs and doses.We identified 3555 records, of which we included 20 primary studies reported across 33 articles. Meta-analyses of drug and dose showed that a single dose of praziquantel 10mg/kg, albendazole 400mg per day for three consecutive days, or niclosamide 2g, resulted in better cure rates for T. solium taeniasis. Evidence was not found that any of these drugs caused severe side effects at the indicated doses, although the extent of the available evidence was limited.Evidence indicated that praziquantel 10mg/kg, niclosamide 2g, and triple dose albendazole 400mg were effective as taenicides and could be considered for use in mass drug administration programs for the control of  Taenia solium are considered, by the WHO, to be neglected tropical diseases. Preventive chemotherapy for taeniasis in endemic populations is a useful tool for control of the parasite. Preventive chemotherapy can be implemented by treating the whole population in endemic areas at regular intervals (known as mass drug administration). While different drugs, doses and regimes have been used there were still uncertainties about which drugs and dose have the best efficacy while considering adverse effects. We conducted a systematic review of the best available literature to inform a WHO guideline for preventive chemotherapy. We found that praziquantel 10mg/kg, niclosamide 2g, and triple dose albendazole 400mg (400mg per day for three consecutive days) are all effective. Proven side-effects were mild and short-lived, when they did occur.Taeniasis and cysticercosis caused by  Taenia solium (T. solium) is a parasite found almost exclusively in humans and pigs. It causes both taeniasis (in its adult form) and cysticercosis . The highest prevalence of T. solium is found in Latin America, sub-Saharan Africa, and east, south and south-east Asia L493-500: not finding a difference doesn’t mean there is no difference (L496-497). The number of studies was extremely low to do a proper evaluation. This should be clearly mentioned. L550-552: this is not very clear. There was no difference for children < 12="" _years2c_="" but="" in="" l552="" it="" is="" mentioned="" ages="" 3-79="" years.="" figure="" _13a_="" the="" additional="" records="" are="" 23="" _figure2c_="" seems="" to="" be="" different="" from="" number="" s1="" file.="" _22_full-text="" articles="" _excluded2c_="" with="" _reasons22_3a_="" which="" _reasons3f_="" include="" reasons.="" diagnosis="" of="" taeniosis="" very="" difficult.="" this="" should="" emphasized="" more="" manuscript="" as="" a="" major="" limitation="" for="" proper="" evaluation="" drugs="" effectiveness.="" methodology="" that="" was="" used="" _figures2f_tables="" where="" possible.="" _l592-5933a_="" test="" would="" you="" _suggest3f_="" --------------------="" plos="" authors="" have="" option="" publish="" peer="" review="" history="" their="" article="" />what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.If you choose “no”, your identity will remain anonymous but your review may still be made public.Do you want your identity to be public for this peer review? For information about this choice, including consent withdrawal, please see our Privacy Policy.Reviewer #1: Yes: Ana FlisserReviewer #2: Yes: Daniel A. Zarate-RendonReviewer #3: No 25 Sep 2019AttachmentPNTD-D-19-01307 Response to reviewers comments.docxSubmitted filename: Click here for additional data file. 14 Oct 2019Dear Dr. Haby:Thank you very much for submitting your manuscript "Systematic review of the effectiveness of selected drugs for preventive chemotherapy for Taenia solium taeniasis" (PNTD-D-19-01307R1) for review by PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. Your manuscript was fully evaluated at the editorial level and by independent peer reviewers. The reviewers appreciated the attention to an important topic but identified some aspects of the manuscript that should be improved.We therefore ask you to modify the manuscript according to the review recommendations before we can consider your manuscript for acceptance. Your revisions should address the specific points made by each reviewer.In addition, when you are ready to resubmit, please be prepared to provide the following:(1) A letter containing a detailed list of your responses to the review comments and a description of the changes you have made in the manuscript.(2) Two versions of the manuscript: one with either highlights or tracked changes denoting where the text has been changed (uploaded as a "Revised Article with Changes Highlighted" file ); the other a clean version (uploaded as the article file).(3) If available, a striking still image (a new image if one is available or an existing one from within your manuscript). If your manuscript is accepted for publication, this image may be featured on our website. Images should ideally be high resolution, eye-catching, single panel images; where one is available, please use 'add file' at the time of resubmission and select 'striking image' as the file type. http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/content-license (NOTE: we cannot publish copyrighted images). Please provide a short caption, including credits, uploaded as a separate "Other" file. If your image is from someone other than yourself, please ensure that the artist has read and agreed to the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution License at (4) Appropriate Figure Files http://journals.plos.org/plosntds/s/figuresPlease remove all name and figure # text from your figure files upon submitting your revision. Please also take this time to check that your figures are of high resolution, which will improve both the editorial review process and help expedite your manuscript's publication should it be accepted. Please note that figures must have been originally created at 300dpi or higher. Do not manually increase the resolution of your files. For instructions on how to properly obtain high quality images, please review our Figure Guidelines, with examples at: https://pacev2.apexcovantage.com/ PACE helps ensure that figures meet PLOS requirements. To use PACE, you must first register as a user. Then, login and navigate to the UPLOAD tab, where you will find detailed instructions on how to use the tool. If you encounter any issues or have any questions when using PACE, please email us at figures@plos.org.While revising your submission, please upload your figure files to the Preflight Analysis and Conversion Engine (PACE) digital diagnostic tool, Please note while forming your response, if your article is accepted, you may have the opportunity to make the peer review history publicly available. The record will include editor decision letters (with reviews) and your responses to reviewer comments. If eligible, we will contact you to opt in or out.We hope to receive your revised manuscript by Dec 13 2019 11:59PM. If you anticipate any delay in its return, we ask that you let us know the expected resubmission date by replying to this email.https://www.editorialmanager.com/pntd/To submit your revised files, please log in to If you have any questions or concerns while you make these revisions, please let us know.Sincerely,Aysegul Taylan Ozkan, Ph.D., M.D.Associate EditorPLOS Neglected Tropical DiseasesJennifer KeiserDeputy EditorPLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases***********************Reviewer's Responses to QuestionsKey Review Criteria Required for Acceptance?As you describe the new analyses required for acceptance, please consider the following:Methods-Are the objectives of the study clearly articulated with a clear testable hypothesis stated?-Is the study design appropriate to address the stated objectives?-Is the population clearly described and appropriate for the hypothesis being tested?-Is the sample size sufficient to ensure adequate power to address the hypothesis being tested?-Were correct statistical analysis used to support conclusions?-Are there concerns about ethical or regulatory requirements being met?Reviewer #1: The authors responded to all my comments and made the necessary changesReviewer #2: (No Response)Reviewer #3: (No Response)--------------------Results-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?-Are the results clearly and completely presented?-Are the figures  of sufficient quality for clarity?Reviewer #1: The authors responded to all my comments and made the necessary changesReviewer #2: (No Response)Reviewer #3: (No Response)--------------------Conclusions-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?-Is public health relevance addressed?Reviewer #1: The authors responded to all my comments and made the necessary changesReviewer #2: (No Response)Reviewer #3: (No Response)--------------------Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”. Reviewer #1: The authors responded to all my comments and made the necessary changesReviewer #2: (No Response)Reviewer #3: (No Response)--------------------Summary and General CommentsUse this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.Reviewer #1: The authors responded to all my comments and made the necessary changesReviewer #2: (No Response)Reviewer #3: There seem to have been a technical problem for my last comments to the first submission, so here they are again:Figure 1: the additional records are 23 in the figure, but seems to be different from the number in S1 File. The diagnosis of taeniosis is very difficult. This should be emphasized more in the manuscript as it is a major limitation for the proper evaluation of drugs effectiveness. Include the methodology that was used for diagnosis of taeniosis in the figures/tables where possible. L592-593: which test would you suggest?--------------------what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article **********Results-Does the analysis presented match the analysis plan?-Are the results clearly and completely presented?-Are the figures  of sufficient quality for clarity?Reviewer #3: (No Response)**********Conclusions-Are the conclusions supported by the data presented?-Are the limitations of analysis clearly described?-Do the authors discuss how these data can be helpful to advance our understanding of the topic under study?-Is public health relevance addressed?Reviewer #3: (No Response)**********Editorial and Data Presentation Modifications?Use this section for editorial suggestions as well as relatively minor modifications of existing data that would enhance clarity. If the only modifications needed are minor and/or editorial, you may wish to recommend “Minor Revision” or “Accept”.Reviewer #3: (No Response)**********Summary and General CommentsUse this section to provide overall comments, discuss strengths/weaknesses of the study, novelty, significance, general execution and scholarship. You may also include additional comments for the author, including concerns about dual publication, research ethics, or publication ethics. If requesting major revision, please articulate the new experiments that are needed.Reviewer #3: (No Response)**********what does this mean?). If published, this will include your full peer review and any attached files.PLOS authors have the option to publish the peer review history of their article  are generated on a different schedule and may not be made available as quickly.Soon after your final files are uploaded, the early version of your manuscript will be published online unless you opted out of this process. The date of the early version will be your article's publication date. The final article will be published to the same URL, and all versions of the paper will be accessible to readers.Thank you again for supporting open-access publishing; we are looking forward to publishing your work in PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases. Best regards,Serap AksoyEditor-in-ChiefPLOS Neglected Tropical DiseasesShaden KamhawiEditor-in-ChiefPLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases


EClinicalMedicine, a journal we trust will be a new home for your clinical and public health research. We aspire to identify, attract, and publish original research that supports change and advances knowledge in all areas of medical research, clinical practice, public health, and health policy. Clearly, like other medical journals, we too want to help communicate research that positively impacts the course of human health or helps us to think differently about a specific medical or public health issue. Still, at the heart of our endeavour lies our commitment to research excellence, transparency, and reproducibility. We, of course, appreciate the necessary restrictions on disclosing human data and we place a premium on protecting patient confidentiality. However, in the interest of improving and accelerating research communication and discovery, we strongly encourage our authors to, where possible, make their data publicly available.Today, we present the first issue of The Lancet family of journals, our content will be anchored in our commitment to publishing responsible and rigorous work.We aim to be inclusive. As such, we will also be receptive to quality submissions of timely and important confirmatory or negative data. Irrespective of the conceptual framework of each piece, and as part of EClinicalMedicine will maintain a high standard of peer-review and publication, involving continuous and active communication between authors, editors, and reviewers. Based on our collective editorial experience, this process will be a valuable and constructive one where the final product is a much-improved article. But we acknowledge its limitations too. A discussion of the current publishing landscape, interconnected with the strengths and weaknesses of peer-review, will be addressed in a subsequent editorial. Still, it is worthwhile mentioning here that we fully recognise the value of discussions that take place before and after peer-review. As preprints in life sciences and medicine gain more traction and attention, discussions that help shape an article towards publication are no longer limited to conferences or confidential peer-review, but are expanding to include the community and readers more broadly. This diversity of debate offers valuable learning and educational opportunities for everyone. It is also our hope that these global scientific conversations will help to promote women and minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) by making their contributions ever more visible. The issue of inequality in STEM is an issue that we, editors from The Lancet family of journals, are conscious of and sensitive to. Recent reports have suggested that potential explicit and implicit biases in the work of scientific journals contribute to the under-representation of women and minorities in STEM EClinicalMedicine we are committed to help reverse inequities and inequalities in science and medicine by taking an active role to ensure that both peer-review participation as well as our commissioned content is as gender and geographically balanced as possible.Long gone are the days when manuscripts arrived by mail at the editor’s office and were then posted to reviewers, who would once again then submit their reports by mail. Today, there are more connected devices than people; yet, due to a multitude of factors, the timeframe from acceptance of a scientific article to its publication is often suboptimal. We appreciate that the landscape of clinical research is fast-moving and that competition for funding is fierce. We acknowledge the importance of making clinical insights available as quickly as possible. By virtue of our digital platform, we have fewer restrictions on the number of papers we can publish. Accepted and proof-corrected articles will be made available online within 48 hours.An article’s journey does not end with its publication. In fact, it may well be just the start. No article is an island. Every article builds on the knowledge and advances of others, and serves as foundation on which further advances can be constructed. Our task, as professional editors, continues after a peer-reviewed article sees the light of the day. We will engage actively with the research community and our readers to promote our content on diverse social media platforms and to commission Commentaries that capture and contextualise research findings. In doing so, we hope to ensure rapid and wide dissemination of new research findings far beyond those doing science. Ideally, all scientific knowledge should be available to everyone immediately, and everyone should have the same means to communicate their quality research. While science publishing remains a long way from that reality, being an exclusively open access journal means that the impact of the work we publish will not be adversely affected by limiting its readership. Although accepted papers are subject to an article processing change, authors from low-income and middle-income countries with insufficient funding may be eligible for a fee reduction or waiver.Lancet team. Through close interaction with The Lancet and The Lancet specialty titles, we are committed to serve our authors and the scientific community by helping you to find a good home for your clinical research. Through partnership with our sibling journal EBioMedicine, whose focus is translational research, we also aim to bridge the communication gap that still exists between laboratory researchers and clinicians. Because technology and medicine are intrinsically connected, improving communication between translational and clinical research is key for fostering collaboration and promoting original thinking that will ultimately benefit society.No article is an island and no journal should be one either. We are fortunate to work with the full support and collaboration of the entire EClinicalMedicine.As John Glenn was sitting inside the Mercury Friendship 7 capsule in 1962, ready for launch on his journey to circle the globe three times, Scott Carpenter, the back-up astronaut for the mission, wished him a good journey: “Godspeed, John Glenn”—a phrase that almost 60 years later still resonates with the idea of discovery. Although editors don’t get to orbit the world at unimaginable speed, we are thrilled about our journey ahead. Every day, we are privileged to learn something new from our authors and readers, and we promise to work with you to help communicate your important work. It is part of our mission that you too will always discover something new and exciting within our  pages. Godspeed,


The scientific publication landscape is changing quickly, with an enormous increase in options and models. Articles can be published in a complex variety of journals that differ in their presentation format (online-only or in-print), editorial organizations that maintain them , editorial handling , editorial board composition , payment options to cover editorial costs (open access or pay-to-read), indexation, visibility, branding, and other aspects. Additionally, online submissions of non-revised versions of manuscripts prior to seeking publication in a peer-reviewed journal (a practice known as pre-printing) are a growing trend in biological sciences. In this changing landscape, researchers in biochemistry and molecular biology must re-think their priorities in terms of scientific output dissemination. The evaluation processes and institutional funding for scientific publications should also be revised accordingly. This article presents the results of discussions within the Department of Biochemistry, University of São Paulo, on this subject. Publishing in peer reviewed, internationally indexed, and widely read academic journals of good standing is considered the ideal mechanism to communicate scientific findings in our field. Although the number of journals related to biochemistry and molecular biology has remained relatively stable over the last decades, the total number of indexed academic journals has grown substantially . Indeed,Our focus within academic publishing is to produce and disseminate the best research possible. Good quality scientific publications involve specialized peer review in order to assure quality before showcasing the outcome widely. Scientific impact is often used for research evaluation processes, and impact assessment criteria should reflect quality publications. We thus believe that quality assessment must evolve to reflect the current perception of the best publication venues, and not primarily influence journal choice by authors. Furthermore, we believe guidelines can aid the choice of publication venues, but authors should always be free to make the final decision, as they are the most specialized persons in their particular field.http://lattes.cnpq.br/), maintained by the Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq), a federal research funding agency linked to the Ministry of Science, Technology, Innovation, and Communication (MCTIC). Online Lattes CVs list each researcher's publications, with DOIs, citation metrics for the journal (impact factor), and individual papers (number of citations), among many other academic activities.In Brazil, authors’ scientific output (including publications) can be found within the Lattes CV national research database , a federal government agency linked to the Ministry of Education responsible for ensuring quality graduate programs in Brazil by analyzing their research output. Nationally-recognized scores are attributed to each program based on these assessments, and programs may not be recommended or recognized by CAPES if minimal quality is not achieved. Quantifying scientific output  involves separating publications into quality strata , which reflects their visibility and quality. Criteria vary in different scientific areas, but in biochemistry and molecular biology, they are mostly determined by journal impact factor. Impact factors are also often used internationally as a proxy to evaluate research output .Impact factors are numerical values attributed by Thomson Reuters to academic journals that reflect the average number of times an article published in that journal is cited by other academic articles in a given year. The simplicity of this metric is probably what makes it by far the most used measure of journal prestige, despite the existence of other journal ranking systems such as the Eigenfactor and SCImago Journal Rank .Impact factors have many caveats when used as metrics to evaluate the quality of a published article. Questions have been raised regarding the methods used by Thomson Reuters ,4, whichAdditionally, journals have used strategies designed to increase impact factors, including the publication of a large number of review articles, creating commentaries and other sections that are not included as publications in impact factor calculations , and even delaying final online publication dates versus preliminary online publication ,6. ImpacOverall, while impact factors are commonly used in academic publication assessment, we do not believe they should be the central determining factor when choosing publication venues. Instead, the audience reached by a journal, its time-tested reputation, type of publication, institutions backing it, and its editorial boards and policies should be prioritized.Many types of academic publishing formats exist today. We believe publishing in journals that perform stringent peer review is still the best manner to ensure scientific output quality. Many journals have evolved from print-only to electronic-only publication format (therefore reducing printing costs). In the digital era, we consider both publication formats equivalently visible for primary scientific publications.Importantly, journals chosen for the communication of novel findings should be searchable in common indexing databases such as MedLine, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science so as to disseminate the findings widely. In this sense, book chapters, which have delayed publication and are often not indexed, are in disuse in our area for publishing novel findings .Once published, full-text articles can be accessed by readers through different mechanisms. Traditionally, article access was purchased by libraries and institutions subscribing to the journal. Electronic access allowed for the addition of individualized post-payment options, including pay-per-article.In the 1990s, powered by the advent of the World Wide Web, a new form of scientific publication was discussed, in which the group that was responsible for producing the results also covered publication costs, thus allowing open reading by anyone (now known as open access) . In 1991Due to the immediate dissemination of scientific results, pre-printed articles can gain attention before their final publication and be openly read in pre-print form, independent of the payment method of the journal that they are later published in. This is advantageous in terms of scientific dissemination and adheres to recommendations from the funding agency Fundação de Amparo è Pesquisa do Estado de São Paulo .However, some disadvantages exist for pre-prints within the biomedical area. Particularly for studies that involve possible clinical impact, pre-printing without the stringent control of peer review may be unadvisable . Even foRecently, the type of payment option  of peer-reviewed journals has been intensely debated. In particular, a group of research funders in Europe have announced a radical push toward the open access option called “Plan S”, which aims to make all scientific publications open access by January 2021 ,12. ThisWhile the open access publication format has the unquestionable advantage of making scientific findings fully accessible to readers anywhere and should be a long-term goal for scientific publishing, it has also created problems. Because fees are covered entirely by grants awarded to authors, journals do not depend on publications with sufficient quality to sell to interested third parties, but only of sufficient quality to convince authors of publication merit. In parallel, authors are under pressure to publish in order to advance their careers and increase their competitiveness in grant applications to fund future research. The combination of these realities has resulted in a rapid increase in predatory journals, periodicals with little or no quality standards in which any paid content is published –21.Another less discussed point about open access refers to the real cost of publishing and fair pricing. In a recent search for online prices in 894 open access journals from commercial editors , the medScientific publishing does not obey market price rules, since authors cannot send papers to many journals to find the most cost-effective option. This results in profit margins well above average for these companies . Indeed,Another point pertaining to open access is the source of funding for payments. In Brazil, journal contents are widely accessible due to the CAPES Periodicals Portal, which subscribes to over 45,000 full-text international journals for research and academic institutes in the whole country. On the other hand, open access payment is the authors’ responsibility. While most research grants cover page charges, there is no supplementary financing for open access charges, and authors must therefore choose between paying for open access and consumables for their research . In theOverall, we consider open access publication interesting and desirable in the long run, based on the principle that most academic research is publicly funded, and therefore the public should have access to the results. However, given the current lack of control over quality and pricing in this model, as well as the lack of a secure funding source that does not compromise ongoing research efforts, we do not believe open access publishing should be the primary decisive point when selecting where to publish. We remind authors and readers that full text versions of articles can always be exchanged among scientists through personal correspondence, independently of the journal payment model.Perhaps more important than the payment form in publishing is re-thinking the destiny of profits and their potential application towards future scientific endeavors. There are three general kinds of organizations for editorial publishing: journals that are edited by scientific societies, journals that are maintained by private companies, and journals that are maintained by private companies in partnership with scientific societies. The models that involve scientific societies result in returns of at least part of the editorial revenue to the scientific community. This revenue is often used to fund fellowships, meetings, and other scientific activities. On the other hand, journals that are not backed by scientific societies are free to do as they wish with their profits. A strong link with scientific societies also guides the editorial decisions of a journal, steering it toward academically-relevant, rather than economically-relevant, decisions.Additionally, scientists can participate in journals by acting as academic editors (who select peer-reviewers), within editorial boards , and as advisory panels or steering committee members. Researchers unaffiliated with the journal are also recruited to review manuscripts, and typically do so voluntarily, despite the fact that many editorial companies are for-profit. Some journals increasingly use professional editors instead of active scientists to choose and organize peer review, aiming to streamline the process. More recently, a trend for using professional editors as editorial board members has also emerged. In particular, Nature titles  have replaced active scientists on their editorial boards by full-time PhD-level professional editors.While professional editors may be highly prepared, and having some level of professional editorial skills can help accelerate the revision process, we view the link with active academic scientists as crucial to maintain not only quality peer review but also adequate journal management over time. Overall, the reputation of a journal as well as the quality of the researchers who act in positions within the journal should be prioritized when choosing venues for academic publishing. Journals published by or linked to strong scientific societies are of particular interest, since this guarantees quality maintenance over time and provides a mechanism to return profits from editorial actions back to scientific activities.Within the changing landscape of scientific publishing, the authors of this manuscript aspire to promote quality manuscript publications by prioritizing the following actions:Submit pre-prints whenever possible, avoiding their use only when a target journal does not permit it or it is unadvisable , and then proceed with submission to a quality peer-reviewed journal.Value and provide high quality peer-review in scientific journals, both by delivering careful revisions, when requested, and seeking good revisions of submissions.Give preference to journals with a solid and time-tested reputation for quality, irrespective of current impact factor.Denounce and avoid unfair pricing for both subscription and open access journals.Value journals with good visibility, indexed widely, and that appeal to a general audience.Give preference to journals with strong links to academic societies and that include active and highly reputable investigators on their boards and advisory committees.In providing these guidelines for our aspired publication venues with a strong focus on quality, we hope institutions  will follow by adapting their assessment criteria accordingly. A concerted effort from both researchers and institutions as well as constant revisions of guidelines such as the ones presented herein will hopefully allow the scientific community to successfully navigate the fast changes that are occurring in mechanisms to showcase novel scientific discoveries.


This letter to the editor is in response to “Dangers of Mixed Martial Arts in the Development of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy” by authors Lim, Ho, and Ho, which was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health . This communication clarifies some potentially misleading word choices by the authors and addresses the insinuated, but not established, link between repeated transient choking episodes during martial arts training and a gradual decline in neuropsychiatric testing in the patient presented in the report. I have reviewed the article “Dangers of Mixed Martial Arts in the Development of Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy” by authors Lim, Ho, and Ho, which was published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health . I want to congratulate the authors on their case presentation and discussion; chronic traumatic encephalopathy (CTE) is a very important and current issue. I would like to make some contributions to the portion of the authors’ discussion on the topic of “asphyxia” resulting from “neck chokes” in the context of mixed martial arts (MMA) training and competition. In the paragraph of the discussion extending from page 5 to page 6, the authors offer the theory that there is a potential of CTE-related effects, caused by not only head contact and traumatic brain injury but also from “asphyxia.” They present the premise that, over the course of an MMA athlete’s career, repeated momentary episodes of asphyxia from being choked might result in hypoxic ischemic brain injury (HI-BI). They highlight literature establishing that HI-BI occurs in scenarios in which the brain is deprived of oxygen, such as cardiopulmonary arrest, respiratory failure, and carbon monoxide poisoning. Their summation point is that the patient in the presented case exhibited decreased neuropsychological testing performance over time and that HI-BI, resulting from repeated choking, may have contributed to this decline.Mata Leao in Portuguese or Hadaka Jime in Japanese). They mention that this common and effective choke causes momentary asphyxiation or the opponent to pass out. Although this could rarely be the case, when applied correctly, only the blood flow is cut off, not the airflow. Similarly, because of the interaction between training partners, actual unconsciousness is exceedingly rare.An initial issue to address is the terminology used to describe this topic. The authors repeatedly use “asphyxia” to describe the induced physiologic effect from neck compression which occurs as an attempt to submit an opponent during MMA training and competition. Readers could easily misinterpret the situation based on the use of that term. Asphyxia typically describes deprivation of oxygen via obstruction of breathing. Although obstruction of breathing can occur with compression of the airway in the context of MMA as well as grappling training and competition, the goal and typical outcome of neck compression is to occlude the major vasculature, namely, the carotid arteries and jugular veins. This is a more efficient and safer way to make the person submit prior to unconsciousness, which can occur on the order of 5–10 s . AlthougThe other issue to address is the logical gap between the description of the vascular neck compression, or choke, and the presumption of potential neurologic injury. The authors establish that, over the course of an athlete’s career, they will experience many chokes, which is a fair assessment. They describe some of the pertinent compression forces necessary for the jugular veins, the carotid arteries, and the trachea to be collapsed, which are referenced and in line with literature on the topic ,2,3,4. HAs the authors illustrate, the literature supporting the link between traumatic head injury and CTE is both established and growing. The literature linking CTE or HI-BI and repeat execution of choking techniques in MMA and grappling sports is nonexistent. This lack of evidence is especially significant given the hundreds of thousands of athletes, both past and present, who participate in choke-inclusion sports worldwide. The absence of supporting literature is also significant given the length of time since indexed establishment of the physiologic basis of the presyncope or syncope due to these specific choking techniques, now more than 75 years old ,5. I undThank you to the authors for their manuscript and to the editors for fostering this educational discussion.