As systematic reviews (SRs) inform healthcare decisions, it is key that they address relevant questions and use rigorous methodology. Registration of SR protocols helps researchers identify relevant topics for future reviews and aims to prevent bias and duplication of effort. However, most SRs protocols are currently not registered, despite its significance. To guide future recommendations to enhance preregistration of SRs, it is important to gain a comprehensive understanding of the perspectives within the research community. Therefore, this study aims to examine the experiences with and factors of influence (barriers and facilitators) on prospective SR registration amongst researchers, peer reviewers and journal editors.Two different surveys were distributed to two groups: researchers and journal editors both identified from an existing sample of SRs. Researchers who indicated to have peer reviewed a SR were surveyed on their perspectives as peer reviewers as well. Survey design and analysis were informed by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR). Shared and unique subthemes from the perspectives of researchers, peer reviewers and journal editors were identified and linked to the SR registration process (Innovation), to team, organisation (Inner setting) and (inter)national research community (Outer setting), and to characteristics of researchers, peer reviewers or journal editors .n = 76, 94%) were familiar with SR protocol registration and 81% of researchers had registered minimally one SR protocol. Shared SR registration process subthemes were the importance and advantages of SR protocol registration, as well as barriers such as a high administrative burden. Shared subthemes regarding the inner and outer setting centred on journal processes, external standards and time. Shared individual factors were knowledge, skills and awareness.The survey’s response rates were 65/727 (9%) for researchers, of which 37 were peer reviewers, and 22/308 (7%) for journal editors. Most respondents (The majority of the respondents were familiar with SR protocol registration and had a positive attitude towards it. This study identified suboptimal registration process, administrative burden and lack of mandatory SR protocol registration as barriers. By overcoming these barriers, SR protocol registration could contribute more effectively to the goals of open science.osf.io/gmv6z.The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-023-02405-z. Systematic reviews (SRs) synthesise evidence to inform clinical practice and thereby impact healthcare decision-making world-wide . First, BMJ Open and Systematic Reviews. They can also be registered on digital platforms, either specifically for SRs, like the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO), or on a general open science platform like the Open Science Framework (OSF). For Cochrane reviews, all protocols are published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) and automatically registered in PROSPERO.Prospective registration or publication of SR protocols was introduced with the aim to reduce publication and reporting bias, to prevent unplanned duplication, to facilitate review planning and updating, to optimise the utilisation of research funding and to create opportunities for methodological or collaborative research –4. In liDespite all these options, the percentage of SRs that have a registered protocol is still relatively low. Recent studies showed that 17–40% of SRs have a registered or published protocol –12. TherIn a recent survey, SR authors listed several reasons for failing to register SR protocols, including the lack of awareness, non-mandatory status, time-investment and fear of others stealing research ideas . Furtherhttps://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AT596).The study protocol was preregistered in the Open Science Framework (OSF) on July 8th, 2022 (osf.io/gmv6z) . The wriTo address important aspects of implementation, which are essential for future actions, we used the CFIR to inform this research , 22. Thehttps://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/AT596).Our team developed two surveys: one for researchers and another for journal editors. Researchers who also served as peer reviewers were provided with additional questions in their survey. The development of the survey started with a brainstorm session amongst four authors  to identify important topics. Then, a single author (KvdB) designed the survey questions and answering options based on the domains of the CFIR , 22 and The survey for researchers included a section of questions for peer reviewers. Researchers participating in the survey who indicated to have peer reviewed a systematic review were asked to complete this section from their perspective as peer reviewer. This survey included the following sections: (1) demographic information, (2) familiarity and experience with SR protocol registration or publication as a researcher, (3) potential barriers and facilitators as a researcher and (4) SR protocols during peer review (for those with peer reviewer experience only). Demographic data for researchers consisted of age, gender, country, years working in research, number of SRs co-authored and experience with SR protocol writing.The survey for journal editors included three sections: (1) demographic information, (2) familiarity and editorial experience with SR protocol registration and (3) potential barriers and facilitators from an editorial perspective. For journal editors, the collected demographic data included age, gender, country, journal name , length of work experience and function specification (editor in chief/associate editor/other).We used an existing sample of 357 SRs from a previous study to identify researchers who have published interventional SRs in the field of health(care) research and editors from journals in which these SRs were published . These SAll researchers received an email explaining the rationale of the study and were invited to participate in the study via a personal link to the survey. For journal editors with an identified personal email address, an email with a personal link to the survey was sent. If a general editorial email address was obtained, then an open link to the survey was sent. In those cases, the email included a request to forward the open link to all editorial staff of the journal. When proceeding to the survey via the link, participants were asked to provide informed consent. Participants who received a personal link to the survey and did not participate received four reminders  after the first email was send. We expected a response rate of 10%. To distribute the survey and collect the responses, we used an electronic data capture system (CastorEDC) secured by two-factor authentication  that allQuantitative data from the survey were analysed descriptively and visually using R version 4.2.2 . A surveWe invited 727 researchers and 308 journal editors to take part in the survey. In total, 66 of 727 researchers (50 complete and 16 incomplete responses), of whom 37 indicated to have peer reviewed a SR, provided informed consent. Twenty-three of 308 journal editors (16 complete and 7 incomplete responses) provided informed consent. One researcher and one journal editor who provided informed consent did not complete any of the survey questions, which leaves a sample size of 65 researchers (response rate of 9%), of which 37 were peer reviewers, and 22 journal editors (response rate 7%).n = 42, 64%) with more than 10 years of research experience . Almost 40% of researchers had (co-)authored two to five SRs (n = 25) and another 42% had performed six or more SRs (n = 28). Like researchers, most journal editors with various editorial roles had more than 10 years of experience as editors . A list of the journals represented by the editors is provided in Additional File Characteristics of the respondents are shown in Tables ence n = 7, 57%. An = 76, 94%). Three researchers indicated that they had never co-authored a SR, and three researchers and two journal editors were not familiar with SR protocol registration/publication leading to the end of the survey for these respondents.Most researchers and journal editors were familiar with SR protocol registration/publication  from the open-ended answers, supplemented with responses to closed-ended questions, are presented below according to the CFIR domains for the researchers’, peer reviewers’ and journal editors’ perspectives. Figure importance and advantages, (2) process, (3) relative advantage, (4) costs and (5) effectiveness   importanimportance and advantages of SR protocol registration/publication, such as prevention of duplication, reproducibility, transparency and prevention of bias. This was confirmed with ranking questions on intended outcomes, see Additional File All three groups highlighted the importance and advantages subtheme:Quotes related to It is important to have a clear protocol for conducting systematic review to prevent bias. Registering systematic review prevents duplication of work by others.’—researcher‘The number of SR submissions has exploded. We want to publish novel studies that advance clinical practice, and avoid publishing SRs that have already been recently done. We need a way to track what has already been done.’—journal editor‘I consult the protocol as a peer-reviewer especially to check if there [are] any ad hoc decisions not reported in the manuscript and judge the risk of selective reporting. In any of these cases, authors must clearly justify these decisions in the manuscript for transparency purposes.’—peer reviewer‘process and relative advantage. With regard to the process, both journal editors and researchers mentioned the increased bureaucracy, added administrative burden and potential misuse of protocol records. Researchers gave a median score of 50  for the impact of potential for stealing research ideas on their decision to register/publish a SR protocol. Researchers expressed varying views of the ease of the processes (see quotes below), even regarding the same registry such as PROSPERO, which was most frequently used. In general, registration in PROSPERO or OSF was regarded as easy (41% and 61%) or very easy (23% and 25%). On the other hand, protocol publication in a journal or the CDSR was deemed to be more complex  or found the evidence not adequate .The costs related to SR protocol registration/publication. As SR protocol registration/publication may take some additional time, it may subsequently also bring additional costs.Only researchers reported on the subtheme Unfortunately, the main resource is economic, to pay for the expenses of publications, and not to depend so much on work at the University to have time to dedicate to the development of research protocols.’—researcher.‘journal processes, (2) external standards and (3) time as a resource   journal  journal processes as being dependent on journal requirements, while journal editors referred to it as their internal processes within the editorial team. Researchers reported barriers such as a lack of journals or unclear conditions for accepting SR protocols for publication and expressed a need for copyright or embargo times imbedded into journal processes. Facilitating factors for researchers to register/publish SR protocols were journal policies  and having better chances for publishing ; more factors of influence are shown in Additional File n = 8, 50%, Table Researchers referred tocies n = 6, 78% anhing n = 7, 59%; mcies n = 6, 78% anjournal processes:Quotes illustrating the subtheme [there is a need for] copyright!! Please protect the contents from scooping, at least for a limited time (6 months/a year). You can create collaboration with the journals and convince the editors to check your list during the preliminary assessment of manuscripts.’—researcher‘We encountered a case that completed the peer review process and accepted without registration. We discussed it at the editors meeting and decided to ask the author to register. However, it was not possible to save the data after extraction. Therefore, we decided to publish it with summarizing this process.’—journal editor‘external standards and time as a resource. Researchers referred to the PRISMA reporting guidelines, the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) and Cochrane as being external standards and journal editors referenced the ICMJE guidance.Both researchers’ and journal editors’ use of SR protocol registration/publication was influenced by registry information/completeness. Researchers depended on available registry information to identify which topics were already in the process of review and one respondent pointed out that PROSPERO records are often not updated. Other factors influencing SR protocol registration/publication amongst researchers were internal processes or standards at team or institute level, finances, librarian, and statistical assistance as a resource and team support. Researchers rated their time for registering or publishing SR protocols more adequate  than their finances  on a scale from 0 (not adequate) to 100 (fully adequate).Several subthemes unique to researchers’ inner and outer setting were identified. One being the variability in standards and (2) journal editorial staff as a resource. Journal editors reported a variability in standards for SR methodology and protocol registration/publication and differences in interpretations of the term ‘systematic review’ between various research fields and countries. This was a barrier for them to integrate structured or standardised requirements for SR protocol registration/publication. It was therefore argued by some journal editors that they needed flexibility in standards for SR protocol registration/publication. The lack of journal editorial staff as a resource was perceived as a potential barrier for journal editors to evaluate SR protocols during the journal editorial process.Unique subthemes identified amongst journal editors were (1) n = 16 researchers, 32%; n = 6 journal editors, 32%) or very positive , see Fig. Both surveys contained closed-ended questions on the attitude towards SR protocol registration/publication. Researchers and peer reviewers were also asked about their SR protocol registration/publication behaviour. The attitude of both researchers (including peer reviewers) and journal editors towards SR protocol registration/publication was positive , most had registered/published a protocol for 80 to 100% of SRs , followed by those who had registered/published a protocol for 20% or less of SRs   of researchers reported to register a protocol for 20 to 79% of their SRs. Researchers’ behaviour regarding consulting SR protocol registries or records are portrayed in Additional File From the researchers who registered/published a protocol for at least one SR , awareness , experience with SRs (researchers), double role as peer reviewer or editor (researchers), English language proficiency (researcher), time (peer reviewers)  Fig. .Quotes related to individual factors:It [decision to publish or register the SR protocol] depends on the time available and especially on the knowledge of those writing the protocol.’—researcher‘I don’t have a lot of systematic review studies’—researcher‘I am unaware of specific guidance [of the ICMJE] on review protocol registration’—journal editor‘I consulted [SR protocols as peer reviewer] when I have the time’—peer reviewer‘n = 5, 33%), as well as the time and resources of peer reviewers  on a scale from 0 (not adequate) to 100 (fully adequate). Journal editors indicated that time and resources of themselves affected them negatively n = 5, 3%, as wen = 33, 65%, Additional File n = 13, 65%, Additional File Most researchers learned about SR protocol registration/publication through reporting guidelines  or never  stimulated by journal editorial staff to consult SR protocol records in the peer review process  or most of the time  during peer review, when available , factors within a team, organisation or (inter)national research community (Inner and outer setting domain) and individual factors . Our findings shed light on the multifaceted nature of SR protocol registration and provide a comprehensive understanding of the topic.In general, researchers, including the subset of peer reviewers, and journal editors expressed a positive attitude towards SR protocol registration and publication. They agreed upon the importance of the intended outcomes associated with prospective SR protocol registration/publication such as avoiding unnecessary duplication and reducing publication and selective reporting bias. However, the respondents also highlighted certain negative aspects of SR registration, which were in line with a previous study . These nContrary to a previous study that identified a lack of knowledge or awareness amongst researchers as a main barrier to SR protocol registration , our stuWe identified two other main categories of barriers: (1) different platforms and processes for SR protocol registration/publication and (2) lack of consensus on mandatory requirements and standards. The first category concerns the different platforms and processes for SR registration/publication. Each method of SR protocol registration, including publishing a SR protocol in a journal, has its own advantages and disadvantages. Some individuals may favour protocols published in a journal because the feedback received during the peer-review process can lead to more rigorous SR methods. Additionally, published protocols may also have greater visibility than registered records, which was highlighted by another study . HoweverA second group of barriers relates to a lack of consensus on mandatory requirements and standards for SR protocol registration/publication. Our results show that there is no consensus amongst researchers and journal editors on whether SR protocol registration/publication should be required for publication of a SR. Respondents referred to SR registration/publication as good practice but did not always voice opinions that SR protocol registration/publication should be mandatory. Also, some argued that mandatory SR protocol registration/publication may be more important for some types of SRs; however, which types of SRs this statement referred to remained unclear. The latter has also been highlighted in the survey study of Rombey et al. . Even ifWe incorporated several actions to promote our response rate, including optimising the survey length, ensuring data security and privacy and sending multiple reminders at different days and times. Despite these, our response rates were just below 10%, which was similar to a previous survey study amongst SR authors on SR protocol registration or publication . AnotherDespite the limited sample size overall, sufficiently rich data from the open questions allowed us to explore experiences and opinions of different perspectives using qualitative thematic analysis. The CFIR enabled us to systematically assess potential factors of influence (barriers and facilitators) for successful implementation, resulting in more rigorous methodology. To limit the length of the survey, the number of questions on the peer review perspective was relatively low compared to the other two perspectives. Therefore, the perspective of peer reviewers may not be as saturated compared to the researchers and journal editors. Our findings may not fully represent the perspectives of researchers or journal editors who are unfamiliar or lack experience with SR protocol registration/publication or with SRs in general, since they may have been less likely to respond to our survey. Our study included researchers and journal editors from a diverse sample of interventional SRs published in 2020 and 2021 from a wide range of medical fields and countries. While our survey questions were not focused on a specific type of SRs, the applicability to non-interventional SRs, such as diagnostic test accuracy or prognosis reviews, may be limited.This survey study showed that researchers, peer reviewers and journal editors were familiar with and generally positive about SR protocol registration/publication. However, identified barriers related mainly to the suboptimal process of SR protocol registration/publication. These barriers need to be addressed, so that SR protocol registration or publication can contribute more effectively to the goals of open science. For instance, there is a need for faster processes for publishing SR protocols in journals. Additionally, providing options for (open) peer reviewing registered protocols could enhance the quality and rigor of SRs (protocols). Since there is no consensus on mandatory SR protocol registration/publication, journals should clearly communicate their requirements and preferences in their instructions to authors. More specific requirements and standards on SR protocol registration/publication provided by the ICMJE may encourage adherences to good practices in the field.Additional file 1. Schematic flow of questions and sections of the survey for (A) researchers and peer reviewers and (B) journal editors.Additional file 2. List of journals.Additional file 3. Responses to multiple choice and rating questions.Additional file 4. Detailed information of CFIR domains and identified subthemes from each perspective.Additional file 5. Checklist for Reporting Of Survey Studies (CROSS).


Some specialties require publishing a paper as a prerequisite for becoming a Japanese Medical Specialty Board Specialist. Taking obstetrics and gynecology as an example, we wish to describe some concerns about this. Time limitations oblige residents to publish papers in non-PubMed journals with smaller circulations. Once data have been published, later attempts at secondary publication are difficult. This may bury some important data. Requiring an English presentation and writing an English abstract as a prerequisite for a board specialty may be an option to avoid this. Although we believe that the experience of publishing a paper during residency is important, how to deal with this issue needs further consideration. We have some concerns about this requirement.Writing a paper during residency will promote future research activity, eventually contributing to academia. The Japanese Medical Specialty Board certified 19 clinical specialties. Candidates choose one of these specialties, on entering the senior residency, after which they take a specialist certificate examination. Those who pass the examination become specialists. Although the examination differs among specialties, some require publishing a first author paper as a prerequisite for passing a specialist examination. For example, the Japan Society of Obstetrics and Gynecology (JSOG) requires an obstetrics and gynecology (OBGYN)-resident to publish at least one first author paper as a prerequisite to becoming an OBGYN-Specialist First, residents tend to publish papers in journals with less accessibility. We have long been taught that papers should be accessible to a broad readership, and thus submitted to PubMed journals. However, difficulty in publishing papers in PubMed journals during residency forces residents to publish papers in non-PubMed journals, particularly domestic Japanese journals, usually with a small readership. This is because there is no assurance that a manuscript will be accepted by a PubMed journal within a limited period. If not accepted, the resident cannot become an OBGYN-Specialist. During the last 5 years (2018-2022), the Jichi Medical University OBGYN department produced 21 OBGYN-Specialists: only 3 published papers in PubMed-English journals, whereas the remaining 18 published in Japanese non-PubMed journals, of which 15 were published in regional journals. If there had been no time-limitation and residents had been mentored in writing an English paper, studies of many may have been accepted by PubMed journals.(2). Detailed letters are required for the editors of both a domestic  and an international (target submission) journal. The secondary version must reflect interpretations of the primary version: whether any new recognized significance can be described depends on the journal policy. These two considerations may bury data, even though they may contain important findings.Second, secondary publication of papers already published in domestic Japanese journals is often difficult. This is due to the concern over overlapping publications. After publishing a paper in a domestic journal, its significance might be recognized, making it worthy of secondary publication. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors has set many regulations regarding “acceptable secondary publications” (3). We believe that many other specialties may have Japanese journals with indexing. Alternatively, delivering a presentation at an international meeting should also be a prerequisite: international journals often publish meeting abstracts. These will reach a broader audience. Residents have a chance not only to deliver an English presentation but also write a concise English report. As abstracts are not articles, overlapping publications are avoided. However, some may consider that an abstract is not enough to achieve a specialist certificate.We have two possible solutions. First, an English abstract should also be accepted as a prerequisite. For example, the JSOG annual meeting has an international session. The Japanese OBGYN journal (Acta Obstetrica et Gynaecologica Japonica) provides indexing of JSOG-meeting abstracts The second possible solution is to submit to a medical specialty board a paper not yet accepted for publication. It should be evaluated regarding its appropriateness for a specialist certificate. Its later publication should be confirmed. However, these require additional efforts of certification committees.A statement that publishing a first author paper is required as a prerequisite for the specialist examination is described on the home pages of six specialties. We checked the homepages of the 19 specialties and identified this requirement in the following 6 specialties: pediatrics, neurosurgery, dermatology, otolaryngology, plastic surgery, and OBGYN. Although there have been, to our knowledge, no publications, we believe that the abovementioned problem might also occur in these specialties other than OBGYN. We sent a questionnaire to the directors of these six specialties at Jichi Medical University. Two answered that publishing first author papers was necessary, and another two answered that this was unnecessary. The remaining two had an ambiguous attitude regarding this issue. Irrespective of the pros and cons of publishing papers, all six answered that publishing first author papers as a prerequisite may cause the abovementioned problems.We would never criticize academic societies, which have their own policies. We propose that designing a study and writing a paper should be considered part of a residency program. However, its actual practice should be widely discussed, irrespective of whether and how this certification system of a specialty involves publishing a paper.NoneWe thank Reynir Tómas Geirsson  and Hitoaki Okazaki  for their help. We describe our personal impressions and proposals based on the experience of OBGYN professors and not a formal opinion of our Department, Institute, or Prefectural JSOG Committee.SM and HT identified the significance and wrote the manuscript.Not needed.Not applicable.Not applicable.


Patient Safety in Surgery was launched as an independent, open-access, peer-reviewed and PubMed-indexed journal on November 7, 2007 , to 50% (2020), and currently 70% (2023). Since many articles are rejected at the editorial board screening stage, the average time to rejection is as short as 17 days. Articles submitted for peer review have an average turnaround (TAT) time of 23 days until a first decision is made, and 43 days until acceptance for publication  of 3.7 by Clarivate Journal Citation Reports™. The JIF is calculated as the number of citations of articles published in the journal during the preceding two years (numerator) divided by the number of citable articles in the journal during the same time-window (denominator). The citable items in the denominator are reflective of the scholarly contributions of the journal, including original research, case reports, and review articles. In contrast, editorials and letters which serve a different communication role outside of scholarly activity are excluded from the denominator. For calculation of the current impact factor for Patient Safety in Surgery, articles published in 2020 and 2021 were cited 265 times in 2022, divided by a total of 72 citable articles published in 2020 and 2021, resulting in a respectable impact factor of 3.7. While the time-window of the two preceding years defines the standard impact factor, some journals with a slower velocity of reaching citation peaks prefer to leverage the 5-year impact factor, which is reflective of the years 2017–2021 for the 2022 JIF  declared the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) as a global pandemic in March 2020 [On June 28, 2023, after a wait time of almost 16 years since November 7, 2007, JIF Fig. . The newPatient Safety in Surgery and is not necessarily a testament to the scientific quality of the research published in the journal. Therefore, our editorial board is intentionally not promoting the JIF in isolation, but rather alongside a multiplicity of additional publication metrics, as outlined above.In spite of the editorial board’s excitement about the journal’s first impact factor, we remain cognizant that the JIF represents a measure of the global impact of We remain committed to upholding the highest level of scrutiny and adherence to our established peer review process for assurance of high-quality science published in the journal. We would like to thank our readers, authors, reviewers, and editorial board members for their unwavering support of the journal’s mission over the past 16 years: to improve the safety of patients undergoing surgical procedures, on a global scale.


Májovský and colleagues’  concern The scientific peer review processThe body of qualified reviewers is drowning in a rising sea of writers that includes top researchers, undergraduate students, and academics at all levels in between .Peer review lacks formal standards or guidelines, as well as training, particularly in statistics , creatinReviewers are declining to perform reviews more often since the notion of reviewing as a professional obligation fails to sufficiently recognize or reward the burden it imposes .Peer review fraud, which involves conflicts of interest, influence, and false identities, has evolved out of a need for reviews.Publication pressureThe dearth of reviewers is compounded by the proliferation of plagiarized, fraudulent, and otherwise low-quality work .Pressure to “publish or perish” has led to high-profile cases of academic fraud and likewise feeds “paper mills” that churn out questionable research for academics who are desperate to progress in their careers .The proliferation of “for-profit” journals subverts respectful publishing through financialization that exploits and alienates scientists .AI integrationMájovský et al  displayeIn one study, only 63% of ChatGPT-generated abstracts were caught by reviewers as fakes . In respSuch staunch resistance is misguided; AI may not be an author per se, but its utility in all stages of research, from generating topics and compiling information to writing text, cannot be ignored. If an AI-generated, human-reviewed paper communicates quality research, why should it be disallowed? Moreover, how would we tell?Although AI-generated text detection software can help , detectiAI makes the need for high-quality peer reviews greater and more pressing than ever before. The cornerstone of scientific integrity is on the path to obsoletion without a viable successor. As academic pursuits become increasingly inseparable from industry, conceptualizing peer review as a duty to science will no longer suffice. Respecting and empowering the peer review system will involve considering reviewers as expert consultants, performing reviews as productive work, and creating system-wide guidelines that integrate (rather than resist) AI technologies. This problem, emerging from an imperative for success, needs a peer review system and publication process that has more teeth than trust, a commodity that served us well in the past, but whose restoration bears reinvention.


The rate of science information's spread has accelerated in recent years. In this context, it appears that many scientific disciplines are beginning to recognize the value and possibility of sharing open access (OA) online manuscripts in their preprint form. Preprints are academic papers that are published but have not yet been evaluated by peers. They have existed in research at least since the 1960s and the creation of ArXiv in physics and mathematics. Since then, preprint platforms—which can be publisher- or community-driven, profit or not for profit, and based on proprietary or free and open source software—have gained popularity in many fields . Today, there are many platforms that are either disciplinary-specific or cross-domain, with exponential development over the past ten years. Preprints as a whole still make up a very small portion of scholarly publishing, but a large group of early adopters are testing out these value-adding tools across a much wider range of disciplines than in the past. In this opinion article, we provide perspective on the three main options available for earth scientists, namely EarthArXiv, ESSOAr/ESS Open Archive and EGUsphere. A research article’s preprint is its initial draft shared online, which is frequently  created before submission to a journal and formal peer review . In 1961A range of cross-domain or discipline-specific preprint platforms now exist, with exponential growth these last ten years EarthArXiv . EarthArXiv also receives a continued support from the Earth Science Information Partners.(ii)ESSOAr was started in 2018, and recently evolved into the ESS Open Archive. The Earth and Space Science Open Archive is a community server established to accelerate the open discovery and dissemination of earth, environmental, and space science research by archiving and sharing early research outputs, including preprints, presentations from major scientific meetings, and important documents of scholarly societies. ESS Open Archive is governed by a partnership among the following societies  and Wiley and Authorea. Financial and technical support is provided by AGU and Wiley. ESS Open Archive also allows researchers to preserve their posters or slide presentations from recognized scientific conferences. ESS Open Archive allow, and encourages, linking to data sets in leading repositories or other online resources such as posters and videos. Jupyter notebooks can also be included as supplements. ESS Open Archive also provides an archive for official materials of scholarly societies.(iii)Earth Scientists who have published in the many journals of the European Geosciences Union (EGU) have already become accustomed to such openness and are posting their work prior to peer-review as a discussion on the Copernicus platform . More thPreprints have recently gained popularity across a wider range of academic fields, including the Earth Sciences . The thrAll content posted on these three preprint servers receives a DOI and is citable and freely accessible. Preprints will, where possible, link and resolve to the official published version of record, once available.Cumulative numbers of preprints from EarthArXiv, ESS Open Archive and EGUsphere were sourced from preprint servers individually (data accessed on January 02 2023). As the numbers are not readily accessible on each servers, the numbers were searched, filtered and counted for each year to generate the total number of preprints. As illustrated onhere , for early-career researchers (ECRs) applying for jobs, or for any academic applying for grants or a promotion, given that journal-led peer review can take months or even years ;•Increased visibility may also lead to increased interdisciplinary or transdisciplinary work in fields that would benefit from collaboration between Earth scientists and other disciplines  for their findings to reduce the possibility of being “scooped” by being assigned a digital object identifier (DOI). Some researchers may be afraid or unable to present their results at conferences. Additionally, abstracts available in conference books and proceedings might not always reflect what is presented on the day of the conference. Preprints allow research output to exist, be known and be stored in the digital world;•i.e. sharing diverse types of outputs such as data, research code, or methods);Dismantling of silos that traditional journals sustain by exposing us to a wider range of research than we might otherwise encounter and providing a home for works that do not clearly have a traditional peer-review publication as their intended destination  I think the discussion of the three preprint servers in the Earth Sciences is markedly improved. (2) The authors say that, "Like for the scientific literature in general, the main advantages of discipline-specific servers, compared to using any number of other “generic” platforms  is to be specific to the discipline." I still think this point could still be fleshed out in more detail. I intuitively understand what is meant by the statement - but feel that the point could be articulated more fully. (3) Re: Benefits of preprints. Something that is tacitly discussed is the concept of version control. This could be unpacked just a bit more, in my opinion. While some journals and platforms  readily support version control, one of the biggest benefits of (most) preprint platforms, in my estimation, is the ability to continuously update/expand/refine/etc. - such that manuscripts become more of a living-document, rather than the "final word" on a project or subject.Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature?YesAre arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature?PartlyAre all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?YesAre the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?PartlyReviewer Expertise:I am an academic social worker by training (PhD) with an extensive record of publishing on issues related to open science, peer review, and issues in scholarly publishing.I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. The authors have written an opinion piece outlining the rise and use of preprints in the earth sciences. They briefly describe the history of preprints, identify three common preprint platforms used in the field, and articulate the strengths and limitations for researchers and scholars of posting preprints.EarthArXiv, ESSOAr/ESS Open Archive, andEGUsphere platforms. I found the manuscript to fill a somewhat niche, but relevant area of discussion. Its strengths lie in its overall exposition of the strengths and limitations of preprints and overview of the I hope the following comments, questions, and suggestions help strengthen the overall quality of the manuscript. Additionally, please be advised that any and all references included in this review are suggestive and not meant to be viewed as compulsory.Introduction (1) I somewhat disagree with the opening sentence. Though it includes manuscripts that are best described as an "initial draft shared online", the term preprint (somewhat unfortunately) appears to encompass many different things . There's a brief, but decent discussion here:https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2017/04/19/preprint-server-not-preprint-server/  and here:https://doi.org/10.31222/osf.io/796tu. You might consider adding a sentence or two acknowledging this and emphasizing whatever definition you prefer to in the context of this discussion.arXiv. This might help further contextualize and possibly contrast the historical, professional, and institutional factors that (have and continue to) motivate scientists to engage with or refrain from sharing via preprint servers.  (2) Similarly, though not "necessary", the introduction might also make further mention of the history of preprints prior tohttps://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2003995,https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.2014.14505101036, See: andhttps://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.154.3751.843.a Preprints in the earth sciences (3) This section felt particularly "thin". I think it would be strengthened by comparing and contrasting the three servers/platforms in greater detail. As a reader, I did not feel I got a good understanding how these platforms differed and what benefits one might offer over another . (4) What's more, this section might be improved by a brief discussion of the advantages of discipline-specific servers, compared to using any number of other "generic" platforms .Benefits and issues using preprints (5) You've already cited Ginsparg, 2016 - but I think their work provides a nice (if somewhat opinionated) place for expanding and more fully elaborating upon the strengths and limitations of sharing via preprint . Data and materials (6) The manuscript may benefit from another sentence or two describing how the data for Table 1 and Figure 1 were sourced. As the numbers don't appear (to me) to be readily accessible from the preprint servers, I imagine each site was searched, by year, to generate the total number of preprints. Whatever the case, a bit more explanation may be helpful for enhanced transparency and reproducibility.Miscellaneous commentsEarthArXiv. If applicable, it might be useful to include a statement or two about whether and how doing so benefited its development or dissemination, if at all. (7) I can appreciate that the manuscript was previously published as a preprint onIs the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature?YesAre arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature?PartlyAre all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?YesAre the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?PartlyReviewer Expertise:I am an academic social worker by training (PhD) with an extensive record of publishing on issues related to open science, peer review, and issues in scholarly publishing.I confirm that I have read this submission and 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. et al., 2018). “We have reworked the first paragraph and added some nuances as proposed by reviewer 3. “Though it includes manuscripts that are best described as an "initial draft shared online", the term preprint (somewhat unfortunately) appears to encompass many different things  .”As also suggested by reviewer 2,  we have added details on the 3 preprint servers mentioned in our submission. We have added some details of the advantages of discipline-specific servers, compared to using any number of other "generic" platforms.We have added some details on Benefits and issues using preprints and further cite the work of Ginsparg (2016).We have added a sentence on the methodology on how the numbers were generated.We have added some words in the acknowledgment section stating that our previous preprint at EarthArXiv let us being invited to submit this opinion paper at F1000Research.Thank you for all your comments and suggestions. We have reworked our article as follows. The opinion paper offers insights into the rise of preprints in earth sciences, focusing on three main preprint servers: EarthArXiv, ESSOAr/ESS Open Archive, and EGUsphere. The authors highlight an increasing trend in the cumulative numbers of preprints posted on these servers, indicating the growing popularity of preprints in the field. They further discuss the benefits and issues associated with preprint publishing.Regarding the first research problem addressed, the trend in preprint publishing, I suggest the authors to consider additional factors beyond cumulative numbers. In my opinion, factors such as submission rate, citations, and social attention attracted by the preprints can provide a more comprehensive and reliable assessment of the trend.For the three preprint servers mentioned, I think it would be valuable to outline their distinct features. This information would help readers understand how to choose the most suitable server for posting or searching preprints.As an opinion paper, I suggest the authors to give more further discussion on the specific benefits and challenges unique to preprint publishing in the field of earth sciences, as compared to other disciplines. Considering that the readers of the paper likely come from the field, addressing this topic would provide them with valuable insights. And in the concluding remarks section, the paper will benefit for including comments on the future development of preprints in the field of earth sciences. To enhance the overall content, I would suggest the following improvements:Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature?YesAre arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature?PartlyAre all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?YesAre the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?YesReviewer Expertise:Scientometrics, science of science, scientific communication, preprint, S&T managementI confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard, however I have significant reservations, as outlined above. The comment is very pertinent, unfortunately we do not have access to data like submission rate, citations, and social attention attracted by the preprints. Certain publishers linked to preprint servers  would be able to collate such data, but that is outside the scope of our analysis here.Agreed, we have added details in the form of short paragraphs on each of the 3 preprint servers mentioned in our submission.  We have added a few more examples dedicated to Earth Sciences and added a sentence on future development of preprints in our discipline in conclusion. Thank you again for all your comments.Thank you for your comments, we have refined our article following your suggestions. Congratulations to the authors for this paper, that is relevant. This is an opinion article that begins by defining and briefly discussing the history of preprints and then focuses on the evolution of three preprint repositories in the field of earth sciences. The article provides quantitative data that confirms the growing interest in the aforementioned platforms, and then addresses the advantages and disadvantages of publishing through preprints. The information about the three preprints platforms is interesting. The authors' vision seems adequate to me, although I believe that in the search for greater symmetry the issues should be presented as the benefits -by means of bullets and with a more complete argumentation-. My view is that benefits are clearly and completely highlighted but this is not the case of the drawbacks. The problems derived by a less formal or less complete peer review process may be expanded as it is the case of information overload, insufficient quality assurance, or non-reproducible research. The main problem can be that the reader is not aware that he/she may have been reading a paper that no one has evaluated yet. I am not familiar with the field of earth sciences but in general there is still a high lack of knowledge about preprints as some of them are eventually published in journals and others are not. In the case of Early Career Researchers (ECRs), to which the authors pay special attention, it is true that the quick dissemination of research findings is a clear advantage for ECRs. However, they are also wary of publications that do not pass prior quality control. Therefore, they often hold back from publishing preprints, and not just because coauthors, senior researchers, prefer to publish in traditional journals. ECRs, due to their competitive circumstances, are sometimes more opposed to publishing preprints that do not lead to a traditional publication than other already tenured researchers. Check, for instance, the paper by Nicholas et al. (2022) published in Profesional de la información, v.31, n.4, e310418.  The conclusions are appropriate. Open science  is a necessity and preprints, as one of its manifestations, are growing in importance as both the subscription model of journals and the APCs model are more and more questioned. To sum up, although the paper is well structured and well argued, the paper will benefit for expanding the "still" negative aspects of preprints taking into account the points of view of authors -with particular attention to ECRs- and readers.Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature?YesAre arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature?PartlyAre all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?YesAre the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?YesReviewer Expertise:Scientific communication; Information behaviour; Knowledge organizationI confirm that I have read this submission and 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. We have expanded the drawbacks section (see next response as well).We have added a bullet and have considered the proposed reference: “ECR may wary of publications that do not pass prior quality control. Therefore, they often hold back from publishing preprints, and not just because coauthors, senior researchers, prefer to publish in traditional journals. ECRs, due to their competitive circumstances, are sometimes more opposed to publishing preprints that do not lead to a traditional publication than other already tenured researchers ” Overall, we have refined our article as proposed and expanded the negative aspects of preprints, thank you again.Thank you for your comments and have reworked our article following your suggestions.


In the world of academic research and scientific publishing, the process of peer review plays a pivotal role. It has been an integral part of the scientific community for over 300 years as it serves as an essential mechanism for ensuring the novelty, quality, and integrity of research before it is published in reputable journals. However, the traditional model of peer review has remained largely unchanged. This conventional approach relies on undisclosed evaluations, keeping the entire process veiled from the scientific community. Unfortunately, the existing system lacks adequate transparency and quality, leading to persistent concerns regarding potential biases and misconduct practices.One of the most challenging tasks for authors is to find clear and reliable data on a journal’s performance, especially related to how their manuscripts are handled after submission and the usual time taken to review their work. This transparency is essential for authors, so that they may understand how their work is being evaluated, and can help readers assess the quality of the journal and the published articles. Even nowadays, most researchers gather such information via word-of-mouth or by accessing blog forums, where other authors often share their personal experiences related to journals.Life, we are committed to providing a transparent, fair, and reliable peer review process. While detailed information can be found on our website [At  website , I wouldVisual metrics on journal websites can increase trust in the peer review system by providing a more transparent and accessible view of the peer review process. Such metrics can include information pertaining to the number of reviewers involved in the process, the time taken for review, and the acceptance rate of papers. This transparency can help authors to understand how their work is being evaluated and can help readers to assess the quality of published research.https://www.mdpi.com/journal/life/stats [While it is quite difficult for authors and readers to find data on a journal’s performance (publishers often keep this information locked), MDPI adopts open science practices by providing a range of tools and resources on the website of each journal, including information measuring a journal’s impact, as well as article-level metrics that can help authors to measure the impact of their research. Each metric can place different emphasis depending on the data source, calculation method, or usage context. To ensure the responsible utilization of research metrics, MDPI offers a variety of statistically sound metrics that provide authors with valuable information in order to assist them in their selection. The key metrics are found right at the top of the journal’s main page , includife/stats . The objIn addition to the mentioned metrics, we offer some unique features that were implemented nearly 10 years ago, like the inclusion of authors’ testimonials ,5. TheseLife. Journals often overcomplicate the peer review process, either due to overly complex processes or the inability to find suitable reviewers. MDPI, on the other hand, has developed a refined system that minimizes these issues.While the journal adopts a rigorous and transparent peer review process, the mean time from the manuscript’s submission to the first decision is relatively fast when compared to most journals . Even major open-access journals are known to experience lengthy delays in the peer review, with 2 to 6 months as the standard. While this may sound contradictory , it is easy to understand the effectiveness of the peer review process in First, the submission system is designed to enhance the authors’ experience, providing a user-friendly, efficient, and secure platform for submitting articles. The instructions offer clear guidelines, ensuring that users know exactly what is required of them, including the permissions due when necessary, and the submission system is efficient and streamlined, allowing authors to submit their documents swiftly and easily, which minimizes the time and effort required for submission . The jouThe inability to find suitable reviewers is a major issue for the publishing industry, mainly due to the lack of due recognition associated with the increasing demand for reviewers. Reviewers typically do not receive recognition or monetary compensation for their efforts, making engaging in this task less appealing to researchers. This lack of recognition creates a disincentive for potential reviewers to commit their time and expertise to the reviewing process. Additionally, as the number of peer-reviewed journals and submitted articles continues to expand, the demand for reviewers also increases. This surge in demand, coupled with the reluctance of researchers to take on reviewing responsibilities , creates a shortage of available reviewers.Life, it is common to have 3–5 reviewers per article). The truth is that providing reviewers with payment would only lead publishers to raise their prices for subscription or open access. To overcome this problem, MDPI provides vouchers entitling reviewers to a discount on the Article Processing Charges of their next publication in any MDPI journal. It is a fair and clever solution that demonstrates our appreciation for the work performed by reviewers, and does not have a direct impact on the publisher’s revenue.Publishers, on the other hand, are reluctant to provide any monetary compensation to reviewers due to the major financial burden it may exert on the company. Paying each reviewer for their contribution seems unfeasible, especially when several reviewers are assigned to an article . If plagiarism is detected, the manuscript is immediately rejected. It is particularly crucial that this topic is highlighted because plagiarism has been the nightmare of publishers for decades. Even now, thousands of papers are retracted yearly due to plagiarism and scientific misconduct. At MDPI, this issue is not an issue because the publisher has strict ethical policies and standards in place in order to prevent plagiarism, data fabrication, and image manipulation in its publications. All MDPI submissions are checked for plagiarism using the industry-standard software iThenticate . Such a strict technical check gives us, the academic editors, assurance that any potential misconduct has been minimized and that we may only worry about the scientific aspects of the submitted manuscripts.Upon submission of a new manuscript to the journal Life’s Editorial Board, but occasionally a Guest Editor is invited to serve instead. The editor provides a quick assessment of the manuscript based on scientific criteria, including, for example, whether the following are evident:https://www.mdpi.com/journal/life/about), our aim is to encourage scientists to publish their experimental and theoretical methods in as much detail as possible.The experiments, statistics, and other analyses are conducted at a high technical standard and are described in sufficient detail. Methods and reagents must be described in sufficient detail for another researcher to reproduce the experiments described. As clearly highlighted in our scope  and relevant? Does it include an excessive number of self-citations?Is the manuscript scientifically sound and is the experimental design appropriate to test the hypothesis?Are the manuscript’s results reproducible based on the details given in the methods section?Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they properly represent the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand? Are the data interpreted appropriately and consistently throughout the manuscript? Please include details regarding the statistical analysis or data acquired from specific databases.Are the conclusions consistent with the evidence and arguments presented?General questions to help guide the writing of the review report for research articles include the following:Is the review clear, comprehensive, and of relevance to the field? Is a gap in the knowledge identified?Was a similar review published recently and, if yes, is this current review still relevant and of interest to the scientific community?Are the cited references mostly recent publications (within the last 5 years) and relevant? Are any relevant citations omitted? Does it include an excessive number of self-citations?Are the statements and conclusions drawn coherently and supported by the listed citations?Are the figures/tables/images/schemes appropriate? Do they properly show the data? Are they easy to interpret and understand?General questions to help guide the writing of the review report for review articles include the following:Novelty: Is the question original and well-defined? Do the results provide an advancement in the current knowledge?Scope: Does the work fit the journal scope*?Significance: Are the results interpreted appropriately? Are they significant? Are all conclusions justified and supported by the results? Are the hypotheses carefully identified as such?Quality: Is the article written in an appropriate way? Are the data and analyses presented appropriately? Are the highest standards employed for the presentation of the results?Scientific Soundness: Is the study correctly designed and technically sound? Are the analyses performed to the highest technical standards? Are the data robust enough to draw conclusions? Are the methods, tools, software, and reagents described in sufficient detail to allow another researcher to reproduce the results? Are the raw data available and correct (where applicable)?Interest to the Readers: Are the conclusions interesting for the readership of the journal? Will the paper attract a wide readership, or be of interest only to a limited number of people? Overall Merit: Is there an overall benefit to publishing this work? Does the work advance the current knowledge? Do the authors address an important long-standing question with smart experiments? Do the authors present a negative result of a valid scientific hypothesis?English Level: Is the English language appropriate and understandable?During the manuscript evaluation, reviewers are also asked to rate the following aspects:It is worth noting that MDPI allows reviewers to deposit their review activities into an ORCID iD if the reviewer’s ORCID account is connected to their MDPI Submission System (SuSy) account. To do this, reviewers should register for a SuSy account and connect their ORCID. Once the accounts are connected, reviewers can deposit their review records manually.Accept in Present Form: The paper can be accepted without any further changes.Accept after Minor Revisions: The paper can, in principle, be accepted after revision based on the reviewer’s comments. Authors are given five days to make minor revisions.Reconsider after Major Revisions: The acceptance of the manuscript would depend on the revisions. The author needs to provide a point-by-point response or provide a rebuttal if some of the reviewer’s comments cannot be revised. A maximum of two rounds of major revision per manuscript is normally provided. Authors will be asked to resubmit the revised paper within ten days and the revised version will be returned to the reviewer for further comments. If the required revision time is estimated to be longer than 2 months, we will recommend that the authors withdraw their manuscript before resubmitting, so as to avoid unnecessary time pressure and to ensure that all manuscripts are sufficiently revised.Reject: The article has serious flaws, makes no original contribution, and the paper may be rejected with no offer of resubmission to the journal.At the end of the report, reviewers are asked to provide an overall recommendation for the next processing stage of the manuscript, as follows:Note that the reviewer’s recommendation is visible only to the academic editor, not to the authors. In addition, reviewers should consider that the other reviewers evaluating a specific paper may possess different technical expertise and viewpoints. Consequently, the academic editor may need to make a decision based on conflicting advice. Therefore, the most valuable reports provide the academic editor with the information required in order to inform a decision. Presenting arguments both for and against publication is often more beneficial to editors than a direct recommendation in either direction.At the end of the process, the academic editor grades the peer review reports from a scientific perspective and with regard to their general applicability to the improvement of the manuscript. The overall grading results are used as a reference for future invitations. Reviewers with high grades are invited more often and reviewers with low grades are eventually removed from the database.Accept in present formAccept after minor revisionReconsider after major revisionReject and encourage resubmissionReject and decline resubmissionOnce all reviewers submit their reports, the academic editor receives a notification to log in to the system and make their final decision on each manuscript. The academic editor considers the feedback from the reviewers and their own evaluation of the manuscript in order to make a decision:Decisions regarding the manuscript are conveyed to the corresponding author via an official letter, which is also shared with all co-authors. This letter includes the editorial decision with notes from the academic editor, the feedback from reviewers, as well as any additional requirements specified by the journal office. It is crucial for the authors to comprehend the implications of the rejection decisions. If the conclusions drawn in the manuscript require further support from additional experiments, the paper will be rejected, but the authors will be encouraged to resubmit it after conducting the necessary experiments. However, if the manuscript contains significant flaws, it will be rejected outright without the possibility of resubmission.Making editorial decisions does not rely on vote counting or numerical rankings, and we do not always follow the recommendation of the majority. Our approach involves evaluating the strength of the arguments presented by each reviewer and the authors. Additionally, we may consider other relevant information that is not accessible to either party. Our primary responsibilities lie with the scientific community. Therefore, in determining how to best serve it, we carefully assess the merits of each paper in relation to the many others being considered.When reviewers express conflicting opinions or when authors feel that they have been misunderstood regarding factual points, we may seek further guidance from the reviewers. It is crucial that reviewers are willing to provide additional advice upon request. However, we understand that reviewers are usually hesitant to engage in prolonged disputes. Therefore, we strive to minimize consultations to ensure that the authors receive a fair assessment.Life operates using two levels of acceptance decision. Once the scientific aspects of a manuscript are deemed satisfactory by the academic editor, an editorial acceptance decision is issued. This acceptance is provisional and subject to final checks for formatting and technical requirements. After fulfilling the final requirements, the journal office will send a formal acceptance decision to the authors. The manuscript will then proceed to production, undergoing professional copy-editing, English editing, proofreading by the authors, final corrections, pagination, and eventual publication.Life. The appeal must provide a detailed justification, including point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ and/or Editor’s comments using an appeal form. Appeals can only be submitted following a “reject and decline resubmission” decision, and should be submitted within three months of the decision date. Failure to meet these criteria will result in the appeal not being considered further. The Managing Editor will forward the manuscript and related information (including the identities of the referees) to a designated Editorial Board Member. The Academic Editor being consulted will be asked to provide an advisory recommendation on the manuscript and may recommend acceptance, further peer review, or uphold the original rejection decision. This decision will then be validated by the Editor-in-Chief. A rejection decision at this stage is final and cannot be reversed.Authors may appeal a rejection by sending an e-mail to the Editorial Office of Authors are given the option for all review reports and editorial decisions to be published alongside their manuscript. In addition, reviewers can sign their review, i.e., identify themselves in the published review reports. Authors can alter their choice regarding open review at any time before publication. We encourage authors to take advantage of this opportunity as proof of the rigorous process employed in publishing their research. To guarantee impartial refereeing, the names of the referees will be revealed only if the referees agree to be named, and after a paper has been accepted for publication.Life [I am proud of being responsible for first implementing the open peer review system nearly 10 years ago in Life . The firLife . The revLife . In 2020Life .Life is committed to providing a transparent, fair, and reliable peer review process. This is accomplished via a range of innovative features that have been refined over the past decade through close collaboration between Life’s board members and editorial staff, in conjunction with MDPI. Importantly, the publisher has consistently respected our autonomy in the decision-making process. Except for the Initial Quality Check, all decisions related to a submitted article are handled exclusively by the academic editors and board members. This foundational principle has underpinned the evaluation of over 12,500 articles submitted to the journal thus far. I can personally attest to this, as I have been associated with the journal since its launch in 2011; I was initially involved as a board member, and later as Editor-in-Chief. Furthermore, many esteemed colleagues whom I invited to join the Life board during its early days remain actively engaged, which ratifies our commitment to a reliable peer review process. With them, I have worked hard over the last decade to reach such high standards. As long as our autonomy in the decision-making process remains intact, our presence is an assurance of Life’s integrity.As discussed in this editorial, Life took the step forward. Subsequently, a few other journals embraced this approach, until the system was available across the MDPI portfolio. The decision to incorporate or eschew open peer reviews rested exclusively with the board members overseeing each journal’s operations. This independence exhibited by MDPI journals underscores the publisher’ commitment to fostering rigorous scholarly discourse and upholding the highest standards of academic publishing.The various strategies adopted by MDPI journals in their development also exemplify the autonomy wielded by the board members when making decisions. A noteworthy illustration is the conception of the open peer review system; when I idealized the implementation of this transparent system, only While the in-house assistant editors handle the day-to-day administrative tasks essential for journal operations, the board members are solely responsible for the scientific aspects of evaluating submitted manuscripts. This symbiotic relationship has been pivotal to our success. I hope that this editorial provides authors and readers with a deeper understanding of our values and unwavering dedication to our work, and in turn helps them to understand how their articles are being carefully evaluated.


Each year hundreds of reviewers contribute their expertise to peer review, a process that contributes critically to the quality of the Brain Pathology. The editors at Brain Pathology would like to extend their gratitude to those who have provided their time and energy to review manuscripts for our journal over the last year. We are well aware that our journal can only exist thanks to your concerted efforts to provide concise, accurate, and thoughtful reviews. Below is a list of all of you who completed at least one review, and agreed to have your name published. We also thank those reviewers who choose not to have their names published.Ahrendsen, JaredAlexandrescu, SandaAuer, RolandAyton, ScottBattini, Jean‐LucBieniek, KevinBockmayr, MichaelCai, JinquanCarare, RoxanaCullell, NDel Bigio, MarcDudek, EdEnglert, BenjaminEvelson, PabloFalkenburger, BjörnFerrer, IsidreGilani, AhmedGiustetto, MaurizioGlatzel, MarkusGu, YanGuo, JifengGuzman, SamuelHan, LeiHawkins, CynthiaHerms, JochenHighley, RobinHorbinski, CraigIrwin, DavidJoseph, JeffreyJoutel, AnneKovacs, GaborLammens, MartinLangdon, KristopherLeske, HenningLevine, AdrianLi, JianrongLiu, YingMarklund, NiklasMechtler, KarlMeinhardt, JennyMunoz, DavidNasrallah, MacLeanNicolas, GaelNordin, AngelicaPiao, YueshanPittella, JoséPopa‐Wagner, AurelPriller, JosefPuig, BertaReimann, JensRosi, SusannaRozemuller, AnnemiekeRushing, ElisabethSaleeb, RolaSatomi, KaishiSchulz‐Schaeffer, Walter JSepulveda‐Falla, DiegoShelkovnikova, Tatyana ASpringer, WolfdieterTan, JieqiongTroakes, ClaireVazquez‐Manrique, RafaelVinters, HarryWakabayashi, KoichiWang, YanjiangWang, YuXu, YuqiaoYao, YuZhao, JunliZheng, DanfengZimmermann, Marina


The growing role of artificial intelligence (AI) in healthcare, particularly radiology, requires its unbiased and fair development and implementation, starting with the constitution of the scientific community.To examine the gender and country distribution among academic editors in leading computer science and AI journals.This cross-sectional study analyzed the gender and country distribution among editors-in-chief, senior, and associate editors in all 75 Q1 computer science and AI journals in the Clarivate Journal Citations Report and SCImago Journal Ranking 2022. Gender was determined using an open-source algorithm (Gender Guesser™), selecting the gender with the highest calibrated probability.p = .004). The U.S., the U.K., and China comprised 50% of editors, while Australia, Finland, Estonia, Denmark, the Netherlands, the U.K., Switzerland, and Slovenia had the highest women editor representation per million women population.Among 4,948 editorial board members, women were underrepresented in all positions (editors-in-chief/senior editors/associate editors: 14%/18%/17%). The proportion of women correlated positively with the SCImago Journal Rank indicator (ρ = 0.329; Our results highlight gender and geographic disparities on leading computer science and AI journal editorial boards, with women being underrepresented in all positions and a disproportional relationship between the Global North and South. As of 2022, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration had approved a total of over 500 AI- and machine learning-enabled medical devices, of which more than 75% (N = 391) are dedicated to the radiological discipline. Among various use cases, these AI-powered tools can assist in medical image analysis reaching expert-level results, the transformation of free-text into structured radiology reports, image reconstruction, or radiation dose optimization.6 Since a significant share of medical AI devices is related to radiology, scientific AI, and informatics journals publishing medical AI content can act as important intermediaries between AI developers, scientists, and radiologists, presenting, critically discussing, and disseminating the latest applications across the professional community.7 However, while there are debates about bias, fairness, and diversity of radiological AI applications, there is currently a lack of research on the diversity of experts and scientists who develop new AI products and strategies, which extends to the academic publishing of AI literature.10The development, use, and popularity of artificial intelligence (AI) applications in radiology have increased rapidly in recent years.13 Moreover, editorial board members guide and advise on publishing activities, directions, and processes and promote journals and research among their peers. Hence, the diversity of editorial board members is instrumental in making unbiased judgments, informing policies and best practices, and ultimately empowering diverse research, perspectives, and stakeholders.16 In the context of medical AI journals, diverse editorial boards may foster the development and publication of more accurate and generalizable AI models that meet the needs of diverse patient populations, consequently enhancing diagnostic and treatment capabilities.17Despite the fundamental role of  peer review in academic publishing to achieve an unbiased and fair expert evaluation of the studies conducted, editors of scientific journals hold one of the most powerful positions in academic research, as they evaluate the suitability of manuscripts in the first instance and have the final decision-making authority in the publication process.19 To promote diversity, address biases, and foster a more inclusive research community in the field of  AI development and research, this study primarily aims to provide a first-time, up-to-date assessment of gender disparities and secondarily examines the geographical distribution among academic editors on the editorial boards of leading AI and computer science journals.Although previous studies have examined gender and geographical representations of editorial board members or authorships in radiology and other disciplines affected by medical AI, research on the diversity of academic AI journals remains limited.This cross-sectional study was conducted in accordance with the STROBE guidelines. Because this study was based on publicly available data, institutional review board approval was not required following our institution’s policies.N = 36) and each additional Q1 “Computer Science” journal in the top 50 ranks of the SCImago Journal Ranking 2022 (N = 39).21We examined the gender and country distribution among editors-in-chief, senior, and associate editors of all Q1 journals in the category “Computer Science, Artificial Intelligence” of the Clarivate Journal Citations Report 2022 . Gender was inferred by analyzing each editor’s full name and affiliation country with the open-source algorithm Gender Guesser™, selecting the gender with the highest calibrated probability.Gender and affiliation country of the academic editors were collected by three readers , journal citation indicator (JCI), total citations, and SCImago journal rank (SJR) indicator. Normal distribution was tested using the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. Spearman's ρ was used to determine the correlation between the share of women academic editors and the aforementioned research impact measures. The Mann–Whitney U test was used to compare the impact measures and the proportion of women senior and associate editors between journals with only men and at least one woman editor-in-chief. Journals with missing data were excluded from sub-analyses. A two-sided p value <.05 was considered significant.Statistical analysis was performed using SPSS (version 28.0.1.0) and R (version 4.2.1) with the “tidyverse” and “sf” packages.N = 43), followed by the U.K. (N = 15), Netherlands (N = 13), Switzerland (N = 2), Singapore (N = 1), and Germany (N = 1).The SJR indicator was available for 73 of 75 journals . IF was available for 72 journals . Total citations number  and JCI  were available for 74 journals each. Most journals were registered in the U.S. (N =12/85 (14%); median: 0%, range: 0%–100%), senior (N = 85/460 (18%); median: 11%, range: 0%–100%), and associate editorial board positions ; median: 18%, range: 0%–67%). In total, 65 journals had one, and ten journals had two editor-in-chief positions. Seven of the twelve women editors-in-chief held the position alone, while five co-chaired the position with a man editor-in-chief.p = .304), JCI , and total citation number , but positively correlated with the SJR indicator . IF, JCI, SJR indicator, total citation number, and the percentage of women editors in senior/associate editorial board positions did not significantly differ between journals with only men editors-in-chief and journals with at least one woman editor-in-chief , senior editors: N= 176/459 (38%), and associate editors: N = 1,190/4,388 (27%)), followed by Australia for editors-in-chief (N = 9 (11%)), the U.K. for senior editors (N = 35 (8%)), and China for associate editorial board positions (N = 710 (16%)).Please refer to In the present study, women editorial board members were underrepresented in 73 of 75 computer science and AI journals, with a particularly pronounced disparity in the position of editor-in-chief. The proportion of women on editorial boards showed a positive but weak correlation with the SJR indicator, while there was no significant correlation with IF, JCI, and total citations. Most editors were based in the U.S. and China, followed by Canada, Australia, the U.K., and northern and southern European countries, indicating a disproportionate relationship between the Global South and North and the most populous countries and residence of academic editors.27 Focusing on diversity research of radiology journal editorial boards, a 2018 study by Abdellatif et al. revealed that out of 460 editorial board members, only 88 (19%) were women, which is consistent with the overall women share of 17%  in our study. In a recent 2022 study by Joshi et al., the representation of women on radiological editorial boards was even lower, with 2.4% (1 out of 42) for editors-in-chief, 17.8% (24 out of 135) for deputy editors, and 13.6%  for all editorial board members. On the other hand, Alkhawtani et al. showed that out of 57 radiological journals in 2021, only 5 (8.8%) had a woman as the sole editor-in-chief, while of 4,176 editorial board members, the median proportion of women was 21.5%, indicating a varying distribution of women depending on the investigated radiological journals and editorial positions. Still, all studies display a significant lack of women in all editorial board positions of radiology journals. Given the exponential growth of medical AI-related content not only in computer science but also in academic radiology in recent years, this could likewise hinder the diversity of medical AI research, for example, by discouraging a variety of stakeholders from submitting their contributions, fostering an environment where dominant groups overshadow others, and limiting the range of research topics or inadvertently introducing biases in algorithms.31 In medicine, this carries the risk of disparities in medical diagnostic, therapeutic, and prognostic outcomes for marginalized groups. However, in this respect, not only a diverse editorial board but also the diversity of peer review and double-blinding of manuscripts play a fundamental role. Moreover, especially in the field of medical AI, it is essential to emphasize the importance of diversity, equity, and equality in order to comply with the fundamental principles of biomedical ethics.The underrepresentation of women on editorial boards extends beyond the fields of computer science and AI and is also evident in radiological research and other academic disciplines.36 This discrepancy may suggest that the heightened presence of women in these journals is coincidental rather than a deliberate result of these commitments, underscoring the need for sustained efforts to consistently ensure diversity in the field of  AI research.Finally, six journals stand out in our study for having a comparatively higher proportion of women editorial board members, represented by dark blue bars in  It is noteworthy that India and the countries ranked fourth through tenth  in the 2022 world population ranking are not even among the ten countries with the most editors in our study. Moreover, this reveals an underrepresentation of editors from countries in the Global South. Possible explanations include the interplay between most computer science journals registered in the U.S. and Europe, popular university locations, and the migration of researchers from the Global South to the North.39 In addition, researchers in the Global South are more likely to face challenges such as limited research funding, lack of infrastructure and training, and restricted access to academic networks compared to their peers from the Global North.40 This inequity is even more concerning when contemplating the deployment of AI in healthcare within underrepresented regions. For example, countries in the Global South, which often face a dearth of medical professionals, could immensely benefit from AI-supported diagnostics, such as deep-learning algorithms for segmenting and classifying chest X-rays.42 Yet, the usefulness of these tools is contingent on their accuracy and representativeness. If the training data for medical AI tools is predominantly sourced from the Global North, there is a risk that algorithms are performing poorer in recognizing certain conditions inherent to other patient demographics.45 This lack of inclusivity and potential bias in AI may hamper its applicability and success in varied global settings.In terms of geographical representations of academic editors, we could identify a disproportionate relationship between the most populous countries and where academic editors in computer science and AI journals are based. Despite accounting for 35% of the world population, China and India account for only 17% and 2% of editors, respectively, while 28% of editors are affiliated with the U.S., which accounts for only 4% of the world population. In addition, it is essential to note that Gender Guesser™ is designed to predict only binary gender, that is, categorizing individuals as either male or female. This inherently excludes individuals who do not strictly identify as such, including those who identify as non-binary, genderqueer, or other dimensions in the gender spectrum. Lastly, our cross-sectional analysis represents a snapshot and does not capture changes over time.Limitations of our study include potential misclassification of gender using Gender Guesser™ due to varying associations between names and gender across cultural, regional, and historical contexts.In conclusion, this paper highlights the underrepresentation of women academic editors in leading computer science and AI journals and emphasizes the unequal representation of editors from the Global South. Future research should further increase gender sensitivity, track progress, and help address gender and geographical imbalances to promote ethical, inclusive medical AI that reflects the diverse patient population it serves, aiming to reduce bias in medical diagnosis and treatment and empowering generalizable AI.


Parasitology from January 2022 onwards were available online only. The hardcopy production, like many other academic journals, has now ceased. This is true not only for regular issues but also for forthcoming special issues. Moreover, from January 2023, Parasitology will become open access (OA) where we adopt a Gold Open Access model, specifically a non-exclusive Gold Open Access CC-BY licence (see https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/open-access-policies/open-access-resources/creative-commons-licenses). This arises from the most appropriate OA choice by Cambridge University Press. The change is not trivial for our current financial plan, primarily based upon institutional subscriptions, is transformed to an article processing charges (APCs) one. In order to accommodate peer review and production lead times, all papers submitted after 3rd October 2022, if accepted, will be published as OA.Many readers will have noted that all published articles within Parasitology seeks to improve the global accessibility of its articles, with a more equitable international readership, and responds to the behests of research funders requiring authors to publish in OA journals. All submissions to Parasitology will continue to be fully peer-reviewed to maintain our high standards. With respect to our on-going attention on research integrity and quality assurance processes, we have adopted the use of iThenicate (see https://www.ithenticate.com/) with Crossref providing a database of scholarly papers. Using these e-tools, we can better detect any evidence of plagiarism within forthcoming manuscripts once assigned for peer review.By transitioning to OA, Turnitin (see https://www.turnitin.com/) that is regularly used in academic institutions to search for plagiarism in student essays and assessments. Our use of iThenicate aligns us with other high-profile publishers such as Springer Nature, Wiley and Elsevier, and also helps us to better assess the novelty of work submitted.We stress that evidence of plagiarism within our journal is very rare, but these steps are taken from preventive rather than retrospective concerns. Many of you are likely familiar with its sister technology Parasitology will maintain its grouping of papers in a monthly production cycle, alongside our ‘Accepted manuscripts’ and ‘FirstView’ online categories. Monthly issues will remain with 12 per year, containing some 8–12 papers, not forgetting our 2 further special issues. The latter are typically commissioned upon specific content themes and are usually published some 6 months apart. Of note, 1 special issue is earmarked for outputs from meeting(s) of the British Society for Parasitology, while the other is upon open commission. Commissions are overseen by Professor John Ellis across a range of contemporary interests in parasites and parasitism.Unlike other OA journals that have alternative production of contents, Parasitology's international appeal, we encourage interactions with other international societies and agencies aligned with our journal's objectives. To help manage these processes, Parasitology has adopted a theory-of-change framework  and are considering alternative ways to reward those that give their time pro bono.Our activities within the journal's dimensions need to be coordinated, harnessed and then translated into a varied portfolio of academic outputs, outcomes and impacts. For example, the continued help of our academic referees is a particularly important facet. Indeed, we have thanked many experts for their services this past year  arising from their recent XXXII National Congress held in Naples this year. In the longer term, Parasitology will support a future scientific session at the International Congress of Parasitology (ICOPA) 2026 in Canada. The congress arises from cooperative activities of the World Federation of Parasitologists (see https://www.wfpnet.org/) that bring together many learned biological societies across the world.In the shorter term, Parasitology is proud to continue to sponsor the William C. Campbell postgraduate award of the Irish Society for Parasitology. For those that don't know, William C. Campbell (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Campbell_(scientist)) was a joint winner of the 2015 Nobel Prize for Medicine for the discovery of ivermectin. This year Mona Suleiman from the University of Bath was chosen for her presentation and studies on sRNAs in the free-living and parasitic stages of Strongyloides. A short blog is soon to appear on our website that embellishes upon her achievements.Furthermore, at their annual meetings, Since COVID, there is a well-recognized need for parasitologists to re-initiate face-to-face meetings. These augment discussion of recent knowledge gained and generate livelier and more honest conversations than online fora can. They also better sow the seeds of scientific collaboration and wider public engagement. More details about this and other initiatives within and external to CUP, such as our open image competition for our journal front cover or our Early Career Researcher Award, will follow.https://www.facebook.com/JnlParasitology/) accounts to keep best informed.Please continue to view our website regularly and subscribe to our Twitter (@JnlParasitology) and Facebook . While some of his research is supported by The Wellcome Trust, which requires OA publishing, some of his work is not. A perplexing gap therefore remains which, for example, includes how to translate those quality outputs from keen MSc students into published papers. Developing the redacted outputs of those in training should be considered a fundamental right in higher education, yet the playing field to do so remains uneven.https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/open-access-policies/read-and-publish-agreements). You can check if your institution is covered by a Read and Publish agreement using the online checker (see https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/open-access-policies/waivers-discounts). If your institute is not included within this list, such as JRS's and JTE's home institutions, then some local canvassing of academic needs is required. Furthermore, CUP has provided additional information about OA in all its many guises . To reassure our authors, as a supplementary safeguard, we also welcome a pre-submission enquiry to the editor-in-chief to help clarify whether an APC waiver could be justified for your article if our existing guiding rubric is unclear.Currently, CUP maintains a database of academic institutes eligible within the Read and Publish agreement , the existence of EditorsEditor-in-Chief, 2020–Russell Stothard Deputy Editor-in-Chief & Special Issues Editor, 2021–John Ellis Cinzia Cantacessi, 2022–Hélène Carabin, 2021–2022Joseph Jackson, 2022–Andrew Hemphill, 2011–2022Laura Rinaldi, 2020–Lisa Ranford-Cartwright, 2021–Jonathan Wastling, 2011–Social media editorsSenior Social Media Editor, 2022–Emily Pascoe, 2019–2022, Maureen Williams, 2019–Derrick Osakunor, 2022–