Special sessions are important parts of scientific meetings and conferences: They gather together researchers and students interested in a specific topic and can strongly contribute to the success of the conference itself. Moreover, they can be the first step for trainees and students to the organization of a scientific event. Organizing a special session, however, can be uneasy for beginners and students. Here, we provide ten simple rules to follow to organize a special session at a scientific conference. A typical bioinformatics conference includes special sessions  that are parts of the conference dedicated to a specific subfield or to a particular topic. In this manuscript, we consider special sessions where (short) scientific papers are submitted by the authors, reviewed, and selected for inclusion in the special session. The authors of the accepted articles usually have then a slot to present their work as a plenary talk , as a short talk , or as a scientific poster , based on the assessment of the reviewers or of the special session’s organizers.Scientific conferences are events where researchers, students, and scholars gather to present and discuss new scientific developments and results regarding a specific field. Conferences are sometimes called special sessions brainstorming discussions on new and emerging fields where participants are engaged in an active dialog and ideas exchange, without peer-reviewed papers. In this manuscript, we refer to the former definition. Some conferences use the term workshop as a synonym of special session. In our experience, workshops are satellite events of conferences, related to the scientific meeting but actually happening outside its rooms and schedule. Special sessions, instead, happen within scientific conferences. Regarding duration, we believe a successful special session can occupy half a day of a conference schedule, even if this allocated time can be bigger (in case of many accepted papers) or smaller (in case of few accepted articles).Other scientific meetings call An accepted special session must follow the format of their main conference, of course: If the main conference has a unique main track, the special session will occupy a part of the program of the main track. If the conference has several tracks in parallel, instead, the special session will happen during one of them.In the past, the PLOS Computational Biology Ten Simple Rules collection already provided guidelines for organizing scientific meetings , virtualThe topic of the special session is a pivotal pillar of the success of the special session itself. It should not be too broad , but rather specific to a subfield of the scientific domain of the main conference. Moreover, the topic should be new and cutting-edge: something that is getting momentum in the scientific literature. Ideally, your special session talks should contribute to answering important scientific questions in the field. The title of the special session, additionally, should be clear and concise, without jargon or too many technical words. Moreover, in bioinformatics and medical informatics, focusing the special session on a particular disease, such as heart attack  or amyotChoosing a data type for the studies of the special session could be another efficient way to define the special session topic: You and your co-organizers might decide to limit the special session to data of electronic health records ,13, radiAnother aspect to consider are the possible competing special sessions: Check the websites of the previous editions of the conference and see if there are recurring special sessions organized for several editions of the conference in the past. If there, are they on the same scientific topics of the special session you plan to propose? If yes, then it would be better to change subjects, or to ask them to enter their organizing committee. If no, feel free to move on with the scientific topics you picked. Do the same check regarding special sessions of other scientific meetings: If there might be overlap with the special session of another conference, consider changing subjects.A key asset for the organization of a special session (and of anything in life) is the collaborators that will help you. You need to choose reliable people. Not the smartest, fastest, popular people. For reliable, we mean individuals who will respect their commitments on time: If they agree to do X before the time Y of the day Z, you can rest assured they will do it on time. A mix of junior collaborators and senior collaborators can be the best solution. Moreover, the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion should be considered in the creation of the organizing committee, too. The special session organizers should look for people with different conditions  to be iThe main task to assign to collaborators is the spread of the call for papers (Rules #6 and #7): The number of articles submitted is the single most important aspect for having a successful special session, so all the co-organizers should put their effort into this activity. This rule goes arm in arm with the sixth rule of the ten simple rules for organizing a scientific meeting by Corpas and colleagues (“Carefully select your key helpers: the organizing committees”) : We suggHaving enough funds to organize an event is always an important aspect. A special session might not need extra funding and therefore might not require extra financial support. In some cases, however, additional expenses not covered by the main conference budget might be there, for example, if the special session organizers want to invite a keynote speaker (Rule #4). In this case, we suggest calculating how much money you need for these extra costs, and to contact companies or scientific societies asking them to sponsor your special session. Of course, companies should be in the same technological area as the theme of your special session and should be approached only if they are not already sponsoring that specific conference.In return, one can offer the possibility to insert their banner and web link on the special session website (Rule #5), and/or the chance to have a booth at the conference during your special session’s day. In case of involvement of companies, remember to take into account the possible conflicts of interests, which must all be declared in advance. One might also ask for financial support from a scientific society, such as the national bioinformatics association of the country where the conference is organized, for example. Sponsor’s funds can also be used to secure travel fellowships for undergraduates, graduate students, and postdocs to help them attend the conference. This would encourage the participation of people coming from low-income countries.Having a well-known researcher or professor giving a keynote talk during a special session can make the real difference between a successful and an unsuccessful special session. As Peter Jansson explained on Academia Stack Exchange, having a keynote speaker famous in the special session field would gain interest from people who know her/him and give credibility to the special session . The keyIf you have enough funds (Rule #3), you and your co-organizers might even consider inviting two keynote speakers instead of one. In this case, it would be better to have one keynote talk at the beginning of the special session and the other one at the end. Regarding the order, we suggest to put the more general, wide talk on the scientific topic at the start, so it can also serve as an introduction to the subject. And we recommend to put the more innovative, cutting-edge talk at the end, so that attendees leave the special session with a glimpse on the future directions of the scientific field in their mind. Again, it is important to reaffirm that the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion should be kept in mind when selecting potential keynote speakers ,26,28. SUnderrepresented individuals should be invited first. It is important to identify excellent investigators who may have not yet had the exposure of keynotes in the past.The scientific conference of the special session surely will have a website with all the scientific, technical, and logistic information: Even if useful, its large amount of information might obscure special sessions, including yours. A good idea here is to implement and release a website about your special session that you can include when you share the call for papers among collaborators and colleagues.The website should be simple, with clear information about how to submit papers and how to contact the special session organizers, and built following accessibility guidelines . This spAfter the conference, you can use the website to spread information about the scientific contents of your special session: You can insert the titles and abstracts of the presented articles and slides of the talks, for example. This way, you will make the impact of the special session last longer.Another key point of a successful special session is the spread of the call for papers. The more people get to know about your special session, the more authors can decide to submit a paper, and the more papers your special session will receive. We suggest you to spread your call for papers via email through mailing lists and newsletters of groups of researchers interested in the special session themes, at least two months before the papers’ submission deadlines. University newsletters and websites, topic mailing lists, channels of scientific societies and informal groups, your personal website: Anything can help.Beginners and students can ask advice to senior professors and researchers on which mailing lists and newsletters are more popular and established in the special session’s scientific field. Again, particular importance should be given to reaching underrepresented minorities and groups ,26.Of course, the call for papers should be announced on social media as well: Twitter, in particular, has become very popular in many scientific communities in the last ten years. A Twitter account related to the special session, sending regular messages about the call for papers, can be a useful asset. Asking for help to Twitter users having more popular, visible Twitter accounts can be effective, too.Another good way to spread the call for papers is contacting potential authors individually via email. If you know about people working on the special session topic, who might be interested in submitting a paper, you can consider contacting each of them directly informing them about the open call for papers. Moreover, this is a great occasion to invite colleagues and coworkers of your department and institution to submit an article. Oftentimes we are more informed about what happens in online scientific communities than about what happens in our university departments: A special session can be an opportunity to involve colleagues and coworkers towards a common event.Additionally, directly contacting colleagues and coworkers can give you a bit of visibility that might help you in your career in the future. Again, the principles of diversity, equity, and inclusion should be considered when contacting potential paper authors and participants ,26. OnceThis information will allow you to forecast important details such as how many reviewers you will need to handle the submitted papers’ review phase, how much time your special session will occupy in the conference schedule, how much time can be allocated for each paper talk, how large the conference room needs to be for your special session, and approximately how many extended papers will be submitted to the special session special issue on a journal (Rule #9).Predicting the approximate number of submitted articles is tricky; a hint can come from the previous conference editions. The organizers of the previous conference editions can provide this precious information.All our previous rules refer to what to do before the conference. On the special session day, you and your co-organizers will have to chair the special session, making sure everything works well. To this end, we simply suggest you follow the ten guidelines for chairing a scientific session by Alex Bateman and Philip E. Bourne . As the For in-person conferences, we really like the Rule #8 about getting to the venue early in advance to test and check all the technological devices . We believe this rule should be kept in mind not only for special sessions but also for any lecture or class.If the conference is virtual, tests on the online conference platform should be done in advance, too. Additionally, we recommend organizers to ask speakers to give their presentations and talks following accessibility guidelines .A good way to make the impact of your special session last is to organize a special issue of a scientific journal accepting only submitted articles that are extended versions of the papers presented at the special session. This way, authors can take advantage of both the reviewers’ comments obtained during the article peer review and of the participants’ feedback received during the special session and improve their articles making them ready for a journal publication.Special issue is the name used by IEEE journals and Oxford University Press (OUP) journals, while the BioMed Central journals call them supplements and the Frontiers Media journals call them research topics. The organizers of the special session usually serve as guest editors for these collections. Guest editors usually handle the first review phase of these manuscripts , eventually making a final recommendation for the acceptance or the rejection of each article. After this first review phase, an associate editor-in-chief of the journal receives and studies all the review materials of the first phase and decides if recommending the article for acceptance or rejection, or if starting a new review phase with new reviewers. The publication of the special issue in an international scientific journal gives credibility to the special session, especially for the future editions.A special issue is a collection of articles related to a specific topic or to a specific event. These collections can have different names: This special issue should be published after the conference, but its arrangement should start months before it. The organizers have to contact and negotiate an agreement with the aimed journal at least six months before the special session day. The first step is simply selecting a respectable journal on the special session subjects and then contacting the editorial board via email, explaining your intentions. Chances of proposal acceptance are higher for journals that already published conference special issues in the past, of course. Once the agreement with the journal is finalized, the special issue should be advertised on the special session website and in the call for papers: This way, more authors will be attracted and more articles will be submitted. The quality of the manuscripts will also be higher.Several bioinformatics conferences publish post-conference supplements in international journals: for example, the ECCB and ISMB conferences in the Bioinformatics (Oxford) journal ; NETTAB After months of work, email exchange, online meetings, in-person meetings, and many other unexpected things, the day of your special session arrives: Everything goes well, and, fortunately, you can consider this special session successful. For the next conference edition, if the stress and the fatigue of your special session organization were bearable, you might consider to treasure your experience and organize the special session again.You surely will have learnt which aspects to improve and what changes to make for the next edition, and probably you will have new collaborators available to help you. For the following edition, you can also consider to leave the leadership role and to pass it on to other collaborators, perhaps junior members.You would supervise their work, of course, but this way you would let them gain some precious experience.Special sessions are the core of scientific conferences: They bring together researchers, students, and scholars investigating a particular subject, facilitating debates, ideas exchanges, and collaborations on that topic. Most scientific conferences used to be in-person, but, recently, virtual conferences and hybrid conferences  emerged worldwide, due to COVID-19 pandemic.We originally designed these ten simple rules for in-person meetings, but we believe they are valid for virtual and hybrid conferences, too.Regarding timing, the decision to organize a special session should be made at least one year in advance with respect to the conference dates, to allow enough time for preparation. Some conferences, such as ISMB ECCB, for example, have a specific deadline for the special session proposal submissions; these deadlines must be met, of course. Another important aspect to keep in mind is documentation: You might record details and information about all your efforts and tasks of the special session organization in a diary, from the first organizing day to the special session day. This diary will then be useful for organization of the next special session edition and can be shared with new collaborators.All in all, organizing a special session can be a tiresome activity for researchers, especially for people with a busy schedule. We hope these ten simple rules can help anyone around the world organize great, interesting special sessions at scientific meetings. To the ones doing it for the very first time: It is likely that something will go wrong, but that is completely okay, as long as you are willing to learn from your mistakes and misadventures. As the Cult of Done Manifesto says: “People without dirty hands are wrong. Doing something makes you right” . So, wha


PLOS Medicine [PLOS Medicine article whose authors opted in, at the point of submission, to sharing a preprint of their manuscript through an expanded partnership with the preprint server medRxiv.Earlier this year, a study of the effects of heterologous boost immunization against COVID-19 was published in Medicine . Yet thiA preprint is a version of a scientific manuscript posted on a public server prior to or in parallel with formal peer review. Time to publication in a traditional journal can be lengthy, as submissions make their way through rounds of rigorous review. This means that by the time an article is published, science may well have moved on, especially in rapidly evolving contexts like the COVID-19 pandemic. Sharing preprints can accelerate scientific progress, by enabling others to critically engage with and build on the latest results. For individual researchers, posting a preprint is a way to invite formative feedback and to increase the visibility of one’s work. Preprints also model a culture of trust in scholarly communication, opening the door to new collaborations rather than fixating on concerns about being “scooped.”BMJ in 1999 and later shuttered due to low usage [PLOS Medicine in agreeing to consider submissions that had previously been posted as a preprint [PLOS Medicine to take a more proactive role in facilitating this open science practice.But are preprints a good fit for the health sciences? With the launch of arXiv in 1991, it was physics researchers who created a public online repository for unpublished manuscripts rather than circulating them privately via email or, before that, postal mail. In the years that followed, parallel efforts popped up in other fields, including a repository for clinical research created by ow usage . As prepow usage . Still, preprint . There ipreprint . As thesPLOS Medicine has received more than 300 submissions in this way, several of which have been accepted and published in the journal.In 2019, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) launched medRxiv, a dedicated preprint server for manuscripts in the medical, clinical, and related health sciences. Built as a companion to bioRxiv, CSHL’s widely used platform for life science preprints, medRxiv quickly became the community solution of choice for preprint sharing. PLOS was one of the first publishers to allow authors with a preprint on medRxiv to transfer their manuscript directly to relevant PLOS titles for publication consideration. To date, PLOS Medicine authors. As of January 6, 2022, authors completing a full submission to the journal have been given the option to have PLOS forward their manuscript to medRxiv for posting as a preprint [More recently, the journal has expanded its partnership with medRxiv to make preprint sharing even easier for preprint . This ofPLOS Medicine articulated a set of principles for the early sharing of research with implications for human health [PLOS Medicine’s expanded partnership with medRxiv satisfies each of these principles. The journal’s own standards for reporting align with medRxiv’s requirements for funding sources, competing interests, and ethics approvals to be declared, as well as clinical trials to be registered. Each preprint posted on medRxiv bears a prominent notice alerting readers to the manuscript’s peer review status, and a link to the published article is automatically added once it becomes available. Each preprint is also screened by researchers with related expertise to ensure that posting will not pose a risk to patients or public health.In the context of the health sciences, PLOS has particularly emphasized the importance of responsible preprint sharing. Indeed, four years ago the editors of n health . These iPLOS Medicine authors completing a full submission to the journal have opted in to having their manuscript considered for posting on medRxiv. This level of adoption is comparable to opt-in rates at other PLOS journals for posting to bioRxiv, and suggests that the facilitated posting service is valued by health science researchers (even as we hope to see even more of our authors take advantage of it). It’s worth noting that the absolute number of PLOS Medicine manuscripts getting posted to medRxiv is still small, because at present the journal is offering the facilitated posting service only to those authors whose manuscripts will be sent out for peer review. In the future, we may consider extending the service to all authors at initial submission. While we explore new ways of unlocking the value for science that preprints offer, PLOS Medicine remains committed to understanding community needs and to maintaining a balance between rapid dissemination and expert curation that our readers can trust.So far, 18% of


Scientific fraud represents, to varying degrees, an increasingly important part of medical literature and is estimated to make up nearly 20% of this literature. The increase in the number of articles accessible in preprint without peer review during the COVID-19 pandemic has led to an increase in the accessibility of fraudulent articles. In recent years, the viral increase in the number of predatory journals has contributed to polluting the scientific literature with articles whose content is unverifiable. Given the international nature of biomedical research, there is an urgent need to define unequivocally what is considered scientific fraud. In order to counter scientific misconduct, national and supranational procedures should be implemented to inform researchers at the beginning of their medical and biomedical training. Ethics commissions should implement local procedures for monitoring ongoing research. Finally, the fight against predatory journals requires information for researchers and the availability of tools to identify these journals. Scientific fraud represents a particular form of embezzlement with multiple motivations—prestige, notoriety, vanity, secondary benefits sometimes financial gain. The psychological or even psychiatric component of the researchers involved cannot be ignored but has not been the subject of specific studies.As Sox, editor of the Annals of Internal Medicine pointed out in 2006, “the scientific literature is a record of the search for truth. Publication of faked data diverts this search.” .There is therefore an essential ethical responsibility for the entire scientific community not to pollute the medical literature with false data.According to the Office of Research Integrity (ORI), research must be based on four main fundamentals: honesty, accuracy, efficiency, and objectivity .Scientific research does not exclude error but requires a fully critical analysis of the data and results obtained. It is the fruit of collaboration and exchange of ideas and is nourished by the publication of results while requiring respect for the work of each individual and the fair attribution of merit in a highly competitive environment. It requires significant resources but cannot be distracted from perfect objectivity by the interests, even if implicit, of funders. Finally, it relies on peer review of work, a process where conflict of interest can be insidiously present.Violations of scientific integrity are not so exceptional, as was already reported in a study published in Nature in 2005. A total of 2% of the authors admitted to having falsified results, and 30% admitted to possibly questionable scientific conduct , duplicate publication, and plagiarism .The recent COVID-19 pandemic has contributed to an explosion in the dissemination of non-peer-reviewed research results, thus increasing the risk of dissemination of irrelevant scientific information, sometimes resulting from fraudulent practices  meeting was organized in London 10 years ago in order to establish a consensus statement on research misconduct ” .However, the definitions of research misconduct are not uniform in national policies as reported in a large and systematic survey performed in 2014 on misconduct policies in the 40 top countries in research and development . FabricaA thorough analysis of the causes of violations of scientific integrity is needed in order to develop preventive procedures.Pressure to publish is a major cause of scientific misconduct.Money is one of the most important factors behind scientific fraud. Obtaining the funds needed to carry out research projects is directly linked to one's own scientific output. A large number of researchers find themselves under pressure to publish their results as quickly as possible or risk not having their contracts renewed. The expression “publish or perish” describes this race to publish with the real risk of encouraging fraud either by manipulating data or by purely fabricating the data needed for publication.But the pressure to publish can also come from ethically reprehensible heads of laboratories or departments. For example, one study showed that one-fifth of young people who do research are pressured by their supervisors to publish non-reproducible results, and one-third say they have had to steer their research toward results desired by their supervisor .Pressure to publish is associated with psychological stress and appears to be a key factor associated with scientific misconduct .One cannot ignore either the psychiatric dimension present in a certain number of fraudsters in the biomedical field. Their psychological profile is dominated by an inflation of the ego with a search for omnipotence. The narcissistic dimension is in the foreground with a constant search for recognition. This includes scientific recognition but also social recognition.The psychological or even psychiatric aspects in the biomedical field are shared with what is found in the industrial or financial field. In fact, fraud in the scientific field has points in common with any form of swindling with three conditions regularly found which constitute the triangle of fraud: motivation ; rationalization (justification of the fraud), and opportunity, i.e., situations allowing the realization of the fraud .Publications in so-called predatory journals have increased dramatically in recent years, contributing to the dissemination of false sciences.Incentives to publish in predatory journals that offer the assurance of publication in a moderately paid open access journal are a new type of temptation to publish the results of dubious research without the risk of a serious peer review .Predatory journals contribute to the flooding of databases with fraudulent publications when articles are not properly peer-reviewed and the validity of the data is not checked.The main characteristic of this type of publication is the publication of scientific content, without a peer review process, in a relatively short time from submission to publication, for a fairly large sum of money.Predatory journals employ many seemingly respectable strategies and techniques to attract the interest of naïve young researchers who would be eager to publish quickly, in order to get promoted.Beall is considered an expert in the hunt for predatory journals. Thus, he aptly points out that predatory publishers are corrupting open access journals that exploit the author-pays model undermining scholarly publishing and encouraging unethical behavior by scientists .Most young and junior researchers, but also respectable researchers, actively publish in fraudulent or fictitious journals in order to enhance their curriculum vitae and increase their publication output to obtain jobs, finance further studies, and qualify for grants and promotions in academic careers.As a result, several predatory journals have begun to enter credible databases, such as, for example, PubMed, SCOPUS, and Web of Science.While fabricating or falsifying data is clearly the responsibility of researchers and/or their chiefs, the dissemination of false science in predatory journals is primarily the responsibility of the editors of these journals and even the organizations on which they depend.This distinction is important, particularly when it comes to considering ways of combating these abuses.Given the international nature of biomedical research with co-authors affiliated with institutions in different countries, there is an urgent need to define common standards for scientific fraud.Apart from the primary responsibility of the researchers, the responsibility of the institutions employing the researchers must also be stressed. This obviously concerns university institutions and research laboratories but also, in particular with regard to clinical studies and hospitals, whether or not they are linked to a university.The responsibility of journal editors cannot be evaded. The importance of the choice of reviewers and careful and scrupulous control of the articles submitted is fundamental. The problem posed by predatory journals is increasingly important since quality control of scientific production published in these journals is far from guaranteed.Finally, bibliographic databases should be consulted with confidence. However, it appears that an increasing number of articles included in widely consulted databases such as PubMed are found to be fraudulent.The first step in fraud prevention is to implement an information program on good clinical practice and research quality criteria. This education should start in the early years of the medical or biomedical sciences curriculum.A significant number of mistakes can be considered unintentional. These are errors that do not necessarily fall under the label of gross fraud. These “honest” errors are due to methodological misconceptions . Targeted teaching is needed to avoid these types of errors, which are unfortunately not always identified by reviewers. The information should include recommendations on publication rules, in particular, authorship or co-authorship of an article.The role of supervisors, laboratory directors, or heads of departments in clinical research should not be underestimated.It is also a matter of informing not only young researchers but also more experienced ones that fabrication of data, falsification of data, and plagiarism are all considered to be intentional fraud and are punishable with serious sanctions up to dismissal from the institution.Finally, warning about predatory journals is an important element in the education of young researchers (see below).The approval of research projects, in particular clinical research, depends on an in-depth analysis of the protocol by an ethics committee, either academic  or linked to the hospital, most often an academic hospital associated with a medical faculty.Once the research project is accepted, most institutions lack control procedures to monitor the application of the protocol as validated by the ethics commission. It would therefore be necessary to impose within these structures the creation of a supervisory commission attached to the ethics commission, whose aim would be to validate the raw data generated throughout the experimentation. In the case of clinical studies, it would also be appropriate to ensure that patients have really met the conditions for selection in the study. The composition of this monitoring committee should include research experts from the university but also independent persons from outside the institution or university.As mentioned above, predatory journals pose a growing risk of polluting the scientific literature.The first step is to inform researchers of the definition of a predatory journal. One of the first elements that should alert researchers is the solicitation to send an article to an open access journal that asks for significant publication rights with the guarantee of publication.These journals do not bother to look for plagiarism and generally, there is no real peer review.It is therefore a question of making tools available to identify the predatory nature of a scientific journal .https://beallslist.net). This website is a copy of Beall's list of predatory publishers and journals. It was retrieved from the cached copy on 15 January 2017.A list of alleged journals and publishers associated with predatory journals is available online as Beall's list  covering all disciplines not limited to the biomedical sciences. These are journals that are suspected of being predatory, although there is no way to be certain. The aim would be to draw a researcher's attention to the possible predatory nature of the journal. This list is nonetheless open to criticism as it is based essentially on Jeffrey Beal's intuition and has been the subject of serious criticism .Cabells' Predatory Reports is a paid subscription service comprising a database of misleading and predatory journals and a database of “verified and reputable journals,” with details of their acceptance rates and percentages of invited articles .https://app.lib.uliege.be/compass-to-publish/.Compass to publish, currently in beta version, is a tool being developed by the University of Liege in Belgium to warn about the authenticity of a journal or the predatory nature of a journal or publisher. It is an online questionnaire that ultimately indicates the probability that the journal in question should be considered suspicious. This tool, currently in French, is available at It is therefore essential that a recognized international body establishes a list of predatory journals and publishers and that these journals are automatically excluded from scientific databases such as PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, etc.Ad hoc software should be developed for researchers, reviewers, and publishers to exclude from the list of references of submitted manuscripts those that correspond to well-defined predatory journals  or the ORI, which depends on the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.University institutions but also hospitals involved in clinical research must register and subscribe to such a body. The advisory, support, and oversight roles of UKRIO should be enhanced, and it should be properly and securely financed .As the dissemination of scientific discoveries no longer knows borders, scientific fraud is more than ever an international concern. National and international fraud prevention policies are essential to monitoring research integrity, although many institutions have developed their own policies. Indeed, while institutional procedures play an essential role in the prevention and suppression of fraud, national policies are also important to ensure the consistent promulgation and enforcement of ethical standards .Misconduct policies can play a crucial role in preventing and policing research misconduct. Policies typically include a definition of misconduct as well as procedures for investigating and adjudicating misconduct .A national misconduct policy could be defined as a law, regulation, or government funding agency policy operating at the national level that addresses research misconduct.In France, on the initiative of the Ministry of Higher Education, Research, and Innovation, a decree on compliance with the requirements of scientific integrity by public establishments contributing to the public research service and foundations recognized as being of public utility whose main activity is public research was published in December 2021.The fight against scientific fraud involves all actors involved in biomedical research.Since fraud concerns not only researchers but also research structures, reviewers, and press groups involved in the dissemination of research, the solution can only be systemic. The problem of scientific fraud goes beyond the pollution of scientific truth but can constitute a real danger in terms of public health. A regulation of scientific integrity must be addressed by national governments in charge of higher education and public health in the framework of a supranational regulation.The author confirms being the sole contributor of this work and has approved it for publication.The author declares that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article, or claim that may be made by its manufacturer, is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.


Preprints occupied the spotlight early in the pandemic, as scientists, the media and the public sought information on the evolving pandemic. While some in the scientific community embraced this shift, others were concerned about the quality of these papers, which had not yet undergone peer review. Furthermore, the flood of COVID-19 preprints quickly overwhelmed the scientific community's ability to monitor and assess new preprints. Automated screening tools that detect beneficial practices, or common problems, in preprints are one potential solution to this problem. These tools could potentially provide individualized feedback, allowing authors to improve their manuscripts prior to publication in a peer-reviewed journal. We have combined many tools into a single pipeline, called ScreenIT. ScreenIT assess factors such as open data and open code, blinding, randomization, power calculations, limitations sections, and data visualization problems. Since June 2020, we have used ScreenIT to screen and post daily reports on more than 23,000 new COVID-19 preprints deposited on bioRxiv and medRxiv. Results show that practices such as sharing data and code are relatively uncommon. Sample size calculations, blinding and randomization are rarely reported and most papers do not report the sex of participants, animals or samples. This work demonstrates the feasibility of using automated tools to rapidly screen many preprints in real time, and provide authors and readers with rapid feedback. However, this approach has important limitations. Automated screening tools can make mistakes. Tools can't always determine whether an item is relevant to a particular manuscript. Further studies are needed to determine whether feedback from automated tools is effective in encouraging authors to improve reporting.


FEBS Open Bio is constantly evolving to best suit the needs of the scientific community. In this Editorial, we review the various new initiatives introduced in 2022 and look forward to the opportunities and challenges that lie ahead in 2023. FEBS Open Bio surpassed the high standards for innovation, quality and reliability set in 2021. With the invaluable and tireless support of our editorial board members, publishing partner, reviewers, authors, readers and colleagues, we are confident that we accomplished our goal. In 2022, we published four excellent “In the Limelight” issues, focussing on lysosomes, virology, the structures of SARS‐CoV‐2 proteins, and neurotransmitter release, respectively. We also introduced Research Protocols as a new article type, held the journal's first ever in‐person editorial board meeting, awarded 19 poster prizes at 15 international meetings in 10 different countries, and appointed five new editors and two new members of the Editorial Advisory Board. In this editorial, we summarise the new developments in this amazing year and look forward towards 2023.At the beginning of 2022, we faced the very difficult task of ensuring that FEBS Open Bio receives submissions from all over the world on a broad range of subdisciplines, and we constantly strive to ensure that our editorial board reflects this diversity. In 2022, we were very pleased to appoint Francesco (Frank) Michelangeli , Simon Rayner , Hongxia Wang  and Ying Zhao  to the editorial board. In addition, we are delighted to welcome Manuel João Costa  to the journal's Education section. We would also like to congratulate Luciane V. Mello  for her promotion to head of the Education section in 2022.2+ homeostasis mechanisms at the University of Padua, Italy. His main research interests are in membrane biochemistry and Ca2+ transport proteins. Frank was the honorary membership secretary and a trustee of the Biochemical Society, and is currently Treasurer of The Federation of European Biochemical Societies (FEBS).Francesco (Frank) Michelangeli is an Emeritus Professor of Biochemistry at the University of Chester and Honorary Professor in Biosciences at the University of Birmingham, UK. Frank gained his PhD from the University of Southampton and was subsequently awarded a NATO fellowship to undertake research into CaSimon Rayner is a Professor/Group Leader of the Non‐Coding RNA Research Group in the Department of Medical Genetics (DMG) at Oslo University Hospital (OUS)/University of Oslo (UiO). He is also a PI in the Organoid on Chip Centre of Excellence at UiO. His primary research interest is communicable and non‐communicable disease. For non‐communicable disease, he is studying the regulatory roles of the non‐coding genome and the association between ethnic variation and predisposition to Type 2 Diabetes. His work in infectious disease stems from his ties to China as a Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) senior scholar and through his previous position as a PI at Wuhan Institute of Virology, CAS.Hongxia Wang is the chief of the Department of Oncology and Chair of Comprehensive Cancer Center, Shanghai General Hospital, Shanghai Jiaotong University School of Medicine. Her research mainly focuses on the molecular mechanism of cancer stem cell and tumour microenvironment in tumour recurrence, metastasis, and treatment resistance. Another current focus of her group is to improve the clinical application of liquid biopsies in patients with breast cancer, including CTCs and tumour‐derived exosomes. In addition, her team has undertaken large, population‐based studies to examine the use of novel drugs and technologies for cancer patients, especially breast cancer and pancreatic adenocarcinoma.Nature Cancer, Nature Cell Biology, Molecular Cell, Cell Research, and other journals.Ying Zhao completed her PhD at Peking University Health Science Center in Beijing, China, and she is now a professor in the Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Peking University Health Science Center. Her research focuses on autophagy and the tumour microenvironment, and she has published several papers in FEBS Open Bio, Manuel also serves on the editorial board of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology Education, and previously served as an associate editor for PLOS One and BMC Medical Education.Manuel João Costa is an Associate Professor at the School of Medicine and Pro‐Rector for Educational Innovation and Student Affairs at the University of Minho. He is also a coordinator of the University of Minho's centre for innovation and development to teaching and learning (IDEA‐UMinho). He has been appointed to the Learning and Teaching Steering Committee of the European University Association and the Education Committee of the Federation of European Biochemical Societies (FEBS), and is also a delegate at the faculty development committee of the Association for Medical Education in Europe. In addition to We would also like to offer our heartfelt thanks and appreciation to three editors who stepped down from the board in 2022: Alexander Gabibov , Angel Herráez  and Michelle Hill . We are extremely grateful for their many years of service on the editorial board and wish them all the best for the future. Angel Herráez was one of the original editors appointed to helm the Education section on its founding in 2017, and he and Luciane V. Mello were instrumental in the successful growth and development of this section.Janesh KumarNational Centre for Cell Science (NCCS), Pune, IndiaTsukasa TominariNational Institute of Neuroscience, National Center of Neurology and Psychiatry, Tokyo, JapanThe journal's Editorial Advisory Board (EAB) support our editors in providing thorough, timely, fair and expert peer review. In 2022, we were pleased to welcome two new members to the EAB:FEBS Open Bio and Molecular Oncology as the journals' Editorial Assistant from 2018 to the beginning of 2022. We will miss Jacob's professionalism, hard work and good humour, and wish him well in his new role at Frontiers. Jacob is succeeded in the role by Irene Alvarez‐Domenech, who has quickly adapted to the role and has become a highly valued member of the team. We would also like to congratulate Ruzhica Bogeska on her well‐deserved promotion to Senior Editor.In 2022, we also said goodbye to Jacob Weller, who worked on FEBS Open Bio started to publish special issues containing a number of Review articles focussed on a particular topic. In 2022, we published four ‘In the Limelight’ issues, centred on lysosomes, virology, the structures of SARS‐CoV‐2 proteins and neurotransmitter release, respectively.In 2021, Jonathan Martinez‐Fabregas, a member of the journal's EAB, served as a guest editor of our special lysosomes issue. This issue contained five Review articles focussed on the important role of lysosomes, once thought to be little more than waste disposal units, in health and disease: in their article, Jonathan Martinez‐Fabregas, Irene Díaz‐Moreno and colleagues indicated that the lysosome is part of a complex communication network between organelles, and lysosome dysfunction is linked to a variety of pathologies . These dOur second special issue in 2022, published in June, took a broad look at virology under the direction of guest editor Marcelo López‐Lastra. Encarnacion Martinez‐Salas and co‐authors provided an overview of the strategies used by picornaviruses to hijack the cellular machinery to translate viral proteins . In the Our third special issue of the year placed the limelight firmly on one specific virus: SARS‐CoV‐2. Guest editor Alexander Wlodawer commissioned three Review articles focussing on the structures of different proteins of SARS‐CoV‐2: Robin Stanley and co‐authors discussed the structure and function of ribonucleases ; Franck https://febs.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/journal/22115463/webinar.We are constantly striving to ensure that our published content is as accessible and prominent as possible. In November 2022, we ventured into a new medium to disseminate our content by hosting a free webinar to accompany our In the Limelight issue on SARS‐CoV‐2 protein structure. Alex Wlodawer, Robin Stanley, Franck Martin and Xinquan Wang participated in a roundtable discussion on important advances, ongoing challenges and unanswered questions in the field of coronavirus protein structure, including how changes in the structure of the spike protein affect virus activity. This fascinating webinar was very well attended, and we look forward to hosting webinars on other important topics in future for the benefit of the scientific community. We encourage those who were unable to attend to listen to the recording on the journal website here: Our final In the Limelight issue of 2022 focussed on neurotransmitter release: guest editor Josep Rizo and co‐authors kicked off the issue by discussing the important role that structural biology has played in uncovering the mechanisms underlying neurotransmitter release while highlighting the limitations of this approach . In the We would like to express our sincere gratitude to the guest editors and authors of all of the In the Limelight issues published in the journal, and encourage everyone to read this excellent content.Drosophila ovarian germline stem cells, respectively [FEBS Open Bio.In 2022, we introduced a new article type: Research Protocols. These articles describe an experimental protocol in more detail than that typically included in the methods section of a research article, providing a comprehensive list of all required reagents, a step‐by‐step procedure and a troubleshooting section. We hope that the publication of Research Protocols will play a part in countering the life sciences reproducibility crisis, by giving researchers a platform to share their experiences and expertise in how to reliably perform technically challenging protocols. All Research Protocols undergo vigorous peer review to ensure that they make a meaningful contribution to the scientific community and are based on robust methodology, sound ethical standards and careful interpretation of data. We are pleased to announce that we have published our first Research Protocols on a method for validating and mapping protein–protein interactions and Expansion microscopy‐based imaging for visualisation of mitochondria in ectively , 17. We FEBS Open Bio Article Prize was awarded to Sofia Lovestam, the first author of the outstanding paper “Seeded assembly in vitro does not replicate the structures of α‐synuclein filaments from multiple system atrophy,” published in FEBS Open Bio in 2021 [The 2022  in 2021 . The win in 2021 , were boFEBS Open Bio has been awarding a single poster prize at the annual FEBS Congress for several years, but in 2022, we started to award poster prizes at multiple international events. We are pleased to be able to acknowledge and reward excellent work by early career researchers, and extend our congratulations to everyone who won a FEBS Open Bio poster prize in 2022 and previous years.FEBS Open Bio editorial board meeting in Seville, Spain. This meeting was a very long time in the making: we had originally planned to hold a physical meeting in 2020, but were forced to change it to a virtual meeting due to the COVID‐19 pandemic. Last year's in‐person meeting was very well attended, with over 20 members of our editorial board, the editorial office staff and representatives from Wiley and the FEBS Publication Committee. We engaged in lively discussions on journal performance, the perils of paper mill submissions and how to continue to meet the needs of the scientific community through new innovations, and we expect that some of the proposals discussed will bear fruit in 2023.In October 2022, we held the first in‐person We were delighted to meet so many friends and colleagues in person after two years of virtual meetings and e‐mail exchanges. We hope that everyone who attended had an enjoyable and enlightening time in Seville, and we thank the participants for their contributions to the discussions.The coming year promises to be just as exciting as 2022, with several new ‘In the Limelight’ issues on the way; these include issues focussing on Alzheimer's disease and glycosphingolipids in human diseases. In addition, we are planning to publish a special issue of articles authored by recipients of FEBS fellowships, to commemorate the FEBS fellows meeting that was held in Lisbon last year. We will also continue to publish profiles with our editors as part of our ‘an open chat with…’ series, with multiple interviews in the works.FEBS Open Bio and the other FEBS Press journals have contributed to the organisation of the event, and we are proud to announce that there are three sessions organised by FEBS Open Bio and chaired by our editors: (a) Protein life cycle I: localisation, dynamics, functioning, chaired by Irene Díaz‐Moreno; (b) Cell metabolism and stress, chaired by Laszlo Nagy; and (c) RNA biology, chaired by Cornelia De Moor. In addition, this year's Congress will feature the first ever FEBS Open Bio Lecture, which in 2023 will be given by our editor Jose Rizo‐Rey on the topic of molecular mechanisms underlying neurotransmitter release and its regulation. We strongly encourage everyone to consider registering for this year's Congress here: https://2023.febscongress.org/registration.We are also very much looking forward to this year's FEBS Congress, which will be held in Tours, France from 8th to 12th July 2023. For the first time ever, In closing, we would like to thank all of our editors, authors, colleagues, readers and reviewers for their invaluable help and support in 2022. We look forward to working with them in 2023.The authors declare no conflict of interest.DEW and MAR wrote the editorial.


When you are part of a community, especially a scientific one, you are required to contribute significantly to its welfare, because the community as a whole represents each individual within it and, in turn, determines the wellbeing of the participants themselves.Diseases.This is also the case of the Editorial Board of I had the pleasure, honor and privilege of being named Editor-in-Chief of this journal several years ago when it was in its infancy; it had few yearly submissions, a limited editorial board, and it was not considered to be consistent enough to be indexed in PubMed or the Web of Science database.Diseases to be considered a promising ESCI (Emerging Source Citation Index) journal by Clarivate/Web of Science and to be indexed in PubMed/Medline for its significant contributions to the medical community.The hard work of the Editorial Office team and all Editorial Board colleagues, as well as the authors and reviewers who have contributed to the journal, has led Diseases, dedicating a Special Issue to their investigations and findings. Therefore, a few months ago, this project spontaneously manifested itself when we discussed the possibility of creating a cutting-edge issue that better represents the values and potentialities of the journal.We wanted to acknowledge and provide visibility to Editorial Board members who are deeply involved with the work of This issue is dedicated to this aim, with the awareness that it may represent a useful tool in a plethora of fields in which our Editorial Board members are leading researchers.There are several growing topics in the current medical and biomedical literature; among them are the potentialities of the application of artificial intelligence ,2, bioetAtzori and colleagues  focused A collaborative review between scholars from Pakistan and Italy  by De BeFinally, a fourth review, which was a systematic review , investiThe research articles collected in this issue dealt with other very interesting topics. For example, the role that lipoprotein (a) level may have in the correct diagnosis of familial hypercholesterolemia is discussed . AccordiHospitalizations represent one of the higher social costs for our national health systems; therefore, controlling costs is an ever-increasing challenge that should be addressed with better diagnoses and better outcomes. In this sense, Gangu et al.  addresseAs previously discussed at the beginning of this Editorial, artificial intelligence is one of the most cutting-edge topics in medicine, and machine learning may emerge as one of the most promising fields of application in this discipline. For example, patients with hyponatremia may be classified in different risk clusters by means of a machine learning approach which does not require human supervision . AuthorsFinally, an interesting approach was used by Saadeddine and colleagues  to set uOverall, the studies outlined above are the first, very useful contributions of our Editorial Board members which represent the pillars for a new Special Issue collection to be executed by other colleagues in the forthcoming years.


The World Health Organization (WHO) Classification of Tumours provides a definitive classification of all tumours, worldwide. This is essential to underpin the diagnosis and treatment of cancer, as well as research and education. Without it, clinical trial results could not be compared between countries, research results could not be evaluated collectively and epidemiological studies based on cancer registration would be impossible. It really is the basis of cancer science internationally.The 10th World Health Assembly, the governing body of the WHO, which today comprises 194 countries, directed the WHO to ‘continue work on formulating international definitions of nomenclature and statistical classification’. This rather dry phrasing led to the International Classification of Disease series of coding systems and the WHO Classification of Tumours. Dr Leslie Sobin produced the first edition from 1967 to 1981, and the second over the course of 20 years, from 1982 to 2002. The late Dr Paul Kleihues then joined him to produce the 3rd edition from 2000 to 2005, reducing the time taken to produce the series to just 5 years from the previous 20 years. Unfortunately, the pace did not last: the 4th edition took from 2006 to 2018.Prior to the 5th edition, we surveyed the readership and were told very clearly that the maximum tolerable update timing was 5 years: quite a challenge. We set about doing this, by converting the classification to a hierarchical taxonomy, entered into a database, and by paying careful attention to process management. The team leading this was another concern: the 4th edition had just four series editors , who chose the editors for each volume, who then chose the authors. However well-intentioned and motivated the series editors, the likelihood of bias is obvious, as is the massive amount of work they took on. It is hardly surprising that the last edition took 12 years to complete. The fact that the 4th edition was so successful is a tribute to their abilities, but this could not continue given the explosion of knowledge that had to be processed for the 5th edition.In 2017, the new head of the WHO Classification of Tumours, Dr Ian Cree, therefore set up an independent editorial board, the standing members of which are nominated by the major societies of pathology around the world . This haThe new approach in the 5th edition worked quite well across all blue books completed thus far. The only problem area was the classification of haematolymphoid tumours, which had previously used an ad-hoc ‘clinical advisory committee’ (CAC). Unfortunately, despite the fact that the CAC was a self-appointed group, it had nevertheless been allowed to take over the production of the 4th edition and to produce another 4th edition (revised) version 10 years later—and that volume took 3 years to produce. The CAC has been run by many of the same individuals with few changes for many years, and its selection process for new members is obscure. This contrasts with the WHO Classification of Tumours editorial board. Standing members can serve a maximum of two terms of 3 years each, for a total of 6 years. There was a previously unwritten rule in the WHO Classification of Tumours that experts can only serve as editors for two volumes, unless there are exceptional circumstances, and we have adopted that in writing for the 5th edition, with few exceptions.The entire WHO classification is now held in a single database organised around an enhanced hierarchical taxonomy, which facilitates changes to the classification during the writing and editorial phases of production, and which mandates a systematic description of the shared characteristics of each tumour type. This also highlights the dearth of evidence in some areas—gaps in knowledge, which we hope will be addressed in future editions , 8. Intrhttps://whobluebooks.iarc.fr), which permits even broader dissemination of the WHO classification and accessibility to it as a worldwide resource.Quality-related issues identified to be addressed in the 5th edition related to the need to improve the quality of figures , the use of standardized international units , 10, HGNThe haematolymphoid tumours volume had the usual two editorial board meetings, the first in June 2021 and the second in November 2021. As published , the firhttps://tumourclassification.iarc.who.int/welcome/) with the publication of the printed book towards the end of 2022, all being well.The second editorial board considered the written evidence for each tumour type provided by the authorship groups. The scientific debate was to a very high standard and many issues were explored. In addition, a dedicated meeting was organised to receive expert clinical haematology/oncology input on the clinical implications of some of the changes introduced in this edition. The resulting ‘to do’ list took several months to complete and was followed by a final editorial board in a short format in March 2022. At the time of writing, the volume is now undergoing IARC editorial checking prior to technical editing. A beta version is expected to go online in July 2022, which allows feedback from users of the subscription website (The outcome of this effort is another classification in the series that will help move the field forward by being based on a forward-looking multidisciplinary effort grounded in genetic advances, with an eye on worldwide applicability. An overview of the classification and its salient features are provided in the two excellent companion manuscripts, which cover the classification of myeloid and histiocytic/dendritic neoplasms  and the The content of this article represents the personal views of the author and does not represent the views of the author’s employers and associated institutions. Where the author is identified as personnel of the International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization, the author alone is responsible for the views expressed in this article, and does not necessarily represent the decisions, policy or views of the International Agency for Research on Cancer/World Health Organization.


ChemRxiv was launched on August 15, 2017 to provide researchers in chemistry and related fields a home for the immediate sharing of their latest research. In the past five years, ChemRxiv has grown into the premier preprint server for the chemical sciences, with a global audience and a wide array of scholarly content that helps advance science more rapidly. On the service’s fifth anniversary, we would like to reflect on the past five years and take a look at what is next for ChemRxiv. On the service’s fifth anniversary, we would like to reflect on the past five years and take a look at what is next for ChemRxiv. ChemRxiv is also guided by a With the participation of these governing organizations and advocates, ChemRxiv helps unite the chemistry community and open up its scholarship. The shared goals for ChemRxiv remain the same as when it was launched:• Rapid sharing of initial research results, accelerating the time for key information to reach the broader community and leading to new collaborations• Appropriate credit for authors’ work• Extended reach for the latest research findingsetc.• Visibility into completed research for job applications, tenure packages, grant proposals, • Opportunity for community feedback on an early manuscript version, leading to a stronger peer-reviewed articlestaking the first claim to new research” as an extremely important benefit, with more than 87% rating it at least somewhat important. This places the desire to get proper credit at the top of the list of benefits, followed by “rapid sharing of results to the community” and then “public record of research activity”. We will continue to engage with our authors in the years ahead to ensure that our goals align with the benefits that they value most.We recently surveyed over 900 chemists to learn more about their views on preprints, and over 43% rated “The posting of preprints in chemistry has steadily grown over the past five years – see Nature and Science.When considering how the posted preprints fit into the larger publishing ecosystem, we have found that more than half of the nearly 14 000 preprints on ChemRxiv have already been published in peer-reviewed journals, and this number continues to grow. The final publication destinations for ChemRxiv authors include the full range of top journals in chemistry, such as titles published by all our partner societies, and even multidisciplinary journals like In the same survey described above, the top concern about preprints was that they could be used to spread misinformation (over 65% of 922 respondents listed this as at least somewhat concerning). This result leads us to continue to emphasize our screening process and our outward messaging. While intentionally not approaching the rigor of peer review to expedite the posting process, every preprint submitted to ChemRxiv is reviewed by a PhD-level chemist for basic appropriateness and lack of any harmful or overtly fraudulent content. We have also carefully labeled the preprint page and our homepage with a warning that the content has not yet been peer reviewed and should not be considered final. As we increasingly engage with the preprint community and general public, we will take care to balance the rapid sharing of new content with the concern over incorrect information being spread.ChemRxiv readers and authors are now just over one year into using a new and improved platform hosted on Cambridge Open Engage. Designed specifically for preprints, the new site offers excellent tools for screening incoming submissions, improved webpages for posted preprints, and a continuously evolving API that connects ChemRxiv with many other downstream indexing services. These tools and features combine to help us rapidly post new preprints (often in one business day) and then ensure that those preprints are found by a wide audience.Direct Journal Transfer service, which allows authors to transfer their preprint manuscript directly to a peer-reviewed journal. Launched with journals from three publishers in 2018, the service now includes 152 possible destination journals from six publishers, with more on the way.We have also continued to expand ChemRxiv’s Based on community feedback, ChemRxiv also now accepts reviews, moving beyond its initial scope of full-length research manuscripts alone. This expansion of ChemRxiv’s remit has proven popular, with over 130 reviews posted in the first three months, providing even more opportunities for chemists to have an outlet to share their scholarship for feedback and credit.Now at ChemRxiv’s fifth anniversary, it is important to consider how preprints will fit into the publishing process for years to come. All the benefits of preprints described above are valid today, and we will continue to invest in improvements to ChemRxiv. Based heavily on input from our community, our near-term efforts will focus on several areas:(1) Improving the experience for authors and readers using the ChemRxiv site, both to submit new preprints and discover new posted content(2) Connecting more closely to the broader publishing space, for example by better sharing metadata to link preprints to published journal articles and ORCID profiles(3) Continuing to improve the infrastructure underlying the site so we can keep processing times low and make it easy to find relevant preprintsWhile we are encouraged by the steadily growing number of preprints posted on ChemRxiv, we see plenty of room to broaden the adoption of preprints across chemistry. We are continuing to expand the geographic representation on our Scientific Advisory Board and to engage with researchers from diverse fields, career stages, and locations to better support the full breadth of the chemistry community.via email at curator@chemrxiv.org.All of us on the ChemRxiv team are grateful for the many authors and readers who have supported the service over these past five years. As preprints become more commonplace in the chemical sciences, we hope to remain a top destination for cutting-edge research findings. If you have ideas for how ChemRxiv can better serve the community, we would love to hear from you. Feedback is always welcome As we move into the next five years and beyond, we hope that you will join the movement by routinely posting preprints of your work  and sharing any interesting preprints that you read. The five societies that manage ChemRxiv are united in their belief that the rapid interchange of scientific results benefits not only chemists but the broader world. Preprints are a valuable step on the path to publication, and we encourage you to take advantage of the many benefits to sharing your work in this way. Our shared belief in the value of preprints is why ChemRxiv was launched, why it is still here today, and why we’ll continue to adapt it to the needs of our community in the years ahead. Benjamin Mudrak, PhD, Senior Product Manager, ChemRxiv, ORCiD: 0000-0002-2805-5690Sara Bosshart, Head of Open Access Journals, Royal Society of ChemistryProf. Dr Wolfram Koch, Executive Director, German Chemical SocietyAllison Leung, Senior Manager, Product Development, ACS PublicationsDonna Minton, PhD, Director of Publications, Chinese Chemical SocietyMitsuo Sawamoto, PhD, Executive Director, Chemical Society of JapanSarah Tegen, PhD, Senior Vice President Journals Publishing Group, ACS PublicationsBenjamin Mudrak, PhDSenior Product Manager, ChemRxivcurator@chemrxiv.orgThe authors are employed by the organizations that co-own and manage ChemRxiv.


PLOS Computational Biology Methods paper.This is a We believe that readers, particularly those at relatively early career stages, could benefit from ten simple rules (TSR) on the topic of “serving as an editor.” By this phrase, we mean that role which may variously be called “handling editor,” “academic editor,” “scientific editor” and so on—in other words, the individual who oversees the process of shepherding a written piece of scientific work from the point of manuscript submission through to peer review and, ultimately, either publication or rejection. We mean this in contradistinction to, say, serving as an editorial advisory board member, a “section editor,” or an editor-in-chief or such. Those roles are of interest too, in terms of career and professional development; however, those types of positions generally begin later in one’s career , versus nearer the start of an independent career , spurring us to focus this piece more on the context of “handling editor.”Simple Rules for Editors’? Here is One Rule to Tackle Neglected Problems of Publishing,” published as a correspondence in this journal 15 years ago [The goal of this TSR is to offer guidance that can help you, the reader—in your current or future roles as a novice handling editor—be the type of editor whom you might have liked to have dealt with yourself, in your own experience and interactions thus far in publishing your work. This piece can be viewed as complementary to an early TSR for reviewers , and theears ago . That inNo” principle.Implied here is the notion that this is a role in the service of others and not yourself. Therefore, with self-preservation in mind, your undertaking this activity should be weighed seriously relative to your career stage, your long-term career objectives, and so on. Serving as an editor will take time and effort, and you should be able and willing to commit the necessary time and focus going into it; otherwise, don’t do it, lest it be a disservice to all involved.  As with all potential obligations, don’t commit to an editorial one if you do not have sufficient time or “bandwidth.” This is essentially the “learn to say An addendum to this Rule is to accept an editorial invitation if you believe it makes sense to, in terms of scientific overlap with your own background and expertise. For example, is this a journal that you would typically publish in yourself? If not, perhaps you should not be an editor for it? This is an important point not only in terms of scientific overlap, but also because of a secondary effect that relates to human nature: The more “involved” you are with a particular journal , the more likely you are to be invested in a high-quality editorial process.Looking backward, use your own history of publishing and authorship efforts as a guide. Reflect on and study the possibly many examples from your background as an author, wherein you likely dealt with handling editors. Some of those encounters may have been more positive than others. What made them positive? (And similarly for the negative—what made those unpleasant?) Are there any takeaways? Try to do this as objectively as possible. For example, when thinking back to your past interactions with editors, try not to scapegoat or otherwise unfairly blame editors or “the journal” for negative outcomes . In looking back, also try to calibrate your view of your past experiences and interactions with editors by taking into account an appreciation you may have now (versus years ago) of the time constraints faced by all of us, including editors. From an author’s perspective, the current manuscript/study may feel ultra-high priority (particularly at earlier stages in one’s career), while from the editor’s perspective it is simply impossible for each manuscript to be “highest” priority; try to balance these perspectives when serving as a handling editor.Looking forward, utilize what you learn as an editor—you are gaining brand new knowledge, ahead of the pack. Serving as an editor will expand and enrich your perspectives on the science that you read; how fulfilling and important that is to you, personally, is another factor to weigh in deciding whether or not to commit to the editorial undertaking. While it can cause potential downstream conflicts, serving as an editor is generally an enviable position to be in, offering you a broader view of the field than you would have otherwise had; also, it can benefit your own writing practices and how you go about future interactions with editors. In short, you are in a highly privileged position by being an editor; you can leverage that, with appreciation and respect for all that it includes and entails. Basically, this is the “with great power comes great responsibility” adage from Spider-Man.especially when) there may be differences of opinion.Remember that even distinguished scientists write bad papers (but they often know how to influence) and, conversely, little-known scientists write good papers. Don’t fall prey to name-recognition  as a proxy for quality of the work, and give everyone a fair trial. This is essentially the idiom “don’t judge a book by its cover.” A related theme that suffuses this entire TSR is that you should treat all those involved—the authors, the reviewers, and the journal—with the utmost respect, even when , a deputy EIC, various “Section Editors” and “Academic Editors” (the latter is the pool of handling editors), and so on. The rationale for this Rule is multifold and stems from the reality that, sooner or later, things will go wrong; in such cases, “going rogue” with respect to the stricture of strict confidentiality makes a bad situation only worse. For example, you may get extensive pushback from authors on occasion, and in such cases it is crucial to have a single clean, explicit digital trail of all that has transpired with the manuscript under consideration. Such correspondence can occur via the internal tools and communication channels that are generally available at journals . Also important, the reputation of the journal (and you as editor) depends on the equitableness of the review process, and there is no better way to ensure that than by adhering to these principles consistently and uniformly .This Rule is simple and clear enough, and should be abided by with the utmost stringency. If ever in doubt, first consult with a “higher-up” editor within the journal system (not outside it) for advice. Here, we mean “higher-up” as regards the handling hierarchy implicit in most editorial boards; for example, why that is . Next, it probably would be simplest and most beneficial  for you to act swiftly—avoid problems early, when possible. For example, if the manuscript is at the very edge of the journal’s scope, and it is of borderline quality, then you can feel justified in the view that it is unlikely to be a good fit for the journal. One reason for this is that you risk having only poor reviews to go on, as the reviewers that you ultimately end-up assigning will be hard to come by, and they may not have detailed technical expertise that is germane to the specific questions/problems addressed in the work under consideration . You can graciously reject such work sooner rather than later, on the grounds that it is legitimately out-of-scope for the journal. Always consider that a protracted review process benefits no one—neither you, the journal, nor the authors.This principle holds in many areas of life, professional and otherwise. At some point in your editing activities, you will encounter a particular manuscript that consumes a disproportionate amount of time and effort. When that occurs, pause and try to determine For example, 3 reviews are most often split, frequently as a mix of “major” and “minor” revisions (and sometimes even “accept” or “reject”). While a clear consensus is reassuring, insisting on full unanimity among reviewers is unnecessary in proceeding to a decision. Furthermore, a fair-as-possible decision-making process often requires finesse, and may have to be quite nuanced—e.g., you may not reach a decision via a simple “majority vote,” as it is fine to up-weight or down-weight critiques based upon their quality. In other words, don’t be afraid to intervene in the overall process if you sense that doing so would improve the quality (of benefit to everyone) and/or the expediency or efficiency  of the overall process. Your intervention can be viewed as part of the review process, two key goals of which are assessing suitability and quality: (i) the suitability of the research for the journal and its audience; and (ii) the quality of the work itself. In assessing the work’s quality, there may be a need to call upon additional reviewers, and that’s fine; here, just remember that you’ll need to balance two countervailing forces: (i) obtaining an adequate number of sufficiently high-quality reviews ; and (ii) excessively lengthening the overall time-to-decision . As another example of an “intervention,” as an editor you can exercise your judgment to draw the authors’ attention to any particular portions of a reviewer report that you feel merit greater attention than do other parts; this type of guidance from you can be especially helpful in cases of lengthy, sprawling reviews that offer a collection of valuable critiques as well as less-valuable critiques. At the end of the day, bear in mind that a journal’s reputation is tied to the quality of its decisions and its decision-making processes; as a handling editor, you are an integral component of those processes!PLOS ONE, are an exception to this.) In general, Journal ABC and Proceedings of XYZ likely serve different purposes and target audiences. Manuscripts that are submitted to one journal versus another will ideally have some alignment with those respective goals, and it’s fairest to all  to heed that when serving as the work’s editor. In being mindful of context and scope, also remember to maintain perspective on whether the submitted work is a primary research article that reports new findings, versus a mostly methodological piece, a description of new software, a review article, a perspective piece, etc. Again, the criteria for evaluating those different types of publications differ, and it is vital to keep that in mind, particularly if you find yourself in a position of weighing multiple reviews that significantly diverge in their evaluation of the work .In doing so, don’t lose sight of the journal scope and what they—the journal and the manuscript—are each trying to accomplish. As an extreme example, something like Watson and Crick’s DNA structure  and a reEditors must draw heavily upon the expertise of reviewers, which typically number between 2 to 4.  Always bear in mind that reviewers are voluntarily contributing their time and expertise in performing the reviews, with the intent of helping you, as editor, reach a decision on whether or not the journal should publish a piece of work . Also, you will likely learn that finding reviewers for a manuscript can be a major time sink. The closer a potential reviewer is to the work being considered, the more likely you will have a win/win situation for all parties: (i) the more likely the individual is to accept the review assignment; and (ii) with such a reviewer, the manuscript will likely undergo a more careful, diligent review .As editor, helpful tools will generally be available to you via a “journal management system” (JMS). You can use these resources, which are automated to varying degrees, to help you identify conflicts of interest, detect plagiarism, assess the “fit” between a study and a specific journal , etc. IBefore agreeing to edit a particular submission, ask yourself how neutral and objective you are likely to be in this instance? This is phrased as “how” neutral because the realities of human behavior, emotions, and career trajectories are such that no one is 100% neutral. If for no other reasons, such may be the case simply because of the statistical properties of scientific social networks, stemming from the specialization and “influence propagation” in scientific subfields: the “six degrees of separation” phenomenon  may be mHere, we suggest being careful  about how much time you allow the editing process to consume. As with many activities in life, a point of diminishing returns is reached sooner rather than later in the typical manuscript-review trajectory, and dedicating more time to the review process for a given paper won’t improve it (proportionately). Mostly, try to assess the paper, as guided by the peer-review process, try to facilitate its improvement (where possible), and remember to enjoy the process! In a small but definite way, as a handling editor you hold the future of science in your hand—use it wisely.


The Open Science movement aims at ensuring accessibility, reproducibility, and transparency of research. The adoption of Open Science practices in animal science, however, is still at an early stage. To move ahead as a field, we here provide seven practical steps to embrace Open Science in animal science. We hope that this paper contributes to the shift in research practices of animal scientists towards open, reproducible, and transparent science, enabling the field to gain additional public trust and deal with future challenges to guarantee reliable research. Although the paper targets primarily animal science researchers, the steps discussed here are also applicable to other research domains. However, incorporating OS practices is still relatively limited in the animal science domain. By animal science, we refer primarily to research on domestic animals, including nutritional, behavioural, and physiological aspects. Breaking the barriers to engaging with OS may require learning new skills and adopting new habits. One of the major obstacles in OS engagement is the lack of institutionalized incentives and training opportunities on OS practices. Inspired by guiding papers in the domains of psychological science  should be transparent and publicly accessible. Open Science (OS) is an umbrella of practices referring to the process of making scientific knowledge accessible, reproducible, and transparent to everyone . Transpa science , 5 and e science , we here science  and sugg science .Step 1: share your code and datavia specific repositories. However, the animal science field is still subjected to barriers to data sharing (see Table FAIR) of digital assets. One of the barriers to sharing data and code is the need to guarantee that they are stored safely and are citable . Several open research data repositories  are available to this end. The site re3data is a directory of the main data repositories. More recently, some research institutes have launched their own solutions to facilitate data sharing and open data publications for their researchers and collaborators . For data connected to publications, journals may impose specific repositories. In addition to data repositories, several platforms providing data services  are available such as OpenAIRE and EOSC among others.Some research communities, such as those working in genomics and proteomics, have a long history of data sharing ATOL), for lab analyses data (JERM), and for bioinformatics analyses (Gene Ontology).To follow the FAIR principles, it is important to add a description of your data set in the data repository. This set of information describing a data set is called metadata. It is important to use the same terms when referring to the same variables. Ontologies have been developed for livestock phenotypic traits usable, and improvable by anyone. You will need to provide instructions for running your code with a reproducible example and to list required software with version details included. You can provide your method as an installable library (e.g. R or Python package), including appropriate documentation  can be found on websites of funding agencies.Several funding agencies now encourage researchers to consider data sharing  from the start of research projects. A Data Management Plan (DMP) is now mandatory in projects funded by the European Commission, describing how data will be collected, processed, shared within the collaborators of the project, made openly accessible, and preserved. DMP templates and tools . Preprints can be deposited in three types of platforms: (1) preprint servers like bioRxiv, arXiv, OSF; (2) institutional repositories of which many universities and institutes have their own; and (3) multidisciplinary archives like Zenodo and HAL. There are plenty of established preprint servers for life sciences, but only very few are specifically for animal science (e.g. agriRxiv). OpenDOAR is a directory of OA repositories. Once a server is chosen, the actual preprinting is relatively simple: upload your final document and add meta-data—that is it. It is best practice to upload the most recent version to the preprint server  However, it should be noted that some platforms, such as agriRxiv, do not accept versioning at the moment. Once published in a journal, you should include the full reference and link to your journal article in the preprint version—both steps will facilitate access to the most recent content and ensure your work is cited properly. Services such as Google Scholar allow you to merge the preprint and the corresponding peer-reviewed journal papers, so they will not be duplicated in your publication list and will not bias the calculation of some metrics such as the h-index.Most journals in animal science allow preprinting (see ASAPbio webpage).A common concern about the preprint model is the risk of proliferation of low-quality manuscripts due to lack of peer-reviewing. However, authors may be cautious to release work of low quality as this would harm their scientific reputation. Indeed, there is no indication of low-quality preprint issues in the physics, mathematics, and computer science communities as a result of the widespread placement of preprints in the arXiv server . The samStep 3: publish your articles under OA licensesvia two routes: the gold route and the green route (see Step 4). The gold route refers to the publication in journals where all the articles are published under an OA license. There are several OA journal business models including an Article Processing Charge (APC) model in which the author pays a publication fee to make their work OA. Although the APC model allows breaking the barrier imposed by journal paywalls, the high costs of APCs (up to €9500) impose economic barriers that discriminate against researchers in low- and middle-income countries.Making scientific publications freely available is an essential part of OS. The OA publication in scientific journals occurs mainly thinkchecksubmit and Compass to Publish).Many so-called predatory journals use the OA system to lure researchers offering special rates or fast processing times for their manuscripts . Be awarvia APC. The business model of the hybrid journal is controversial since both authors and readers are charged . An alternative solution to the obstacles of APCs is given by diamond (sometimes labelled platinum) OA journals, often managed by noncommercial and nonprofit societies and organizations. In these journals, publications are made OA at no cost for authors and readers, with the cost being generally covered by a financial and in-kind donation from research institutions and universities. Diamond OA journals operate often at local and national levels. The Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) indexes most of the journals using OA models.A derivative of the gold OA route is the publication in hybrid journals, which are traditional subscription journals  that offer the OA option via three dimensions in regard to (i) the economic model , (ii) the openness model , and (iii) the ownership models . Whereas this paper focuses on openness, the economic and ownership models are also relevant when choosing a journal. When considering the ownership dimension as a criterion for the choice of journal, many society journals can have benefits over nonsociety journals, because part of the publication fees from these society journals is often used to support actions for the scientific community (e.g. training and grants for young scientists). Many society journals, thus, contribute to retain part of the publication fees in academia. Authors should nevertheless check the policy of specific societies individually. At the opposite side, purely commercial journals remove publication fees from the research domain. Society journals have a major role to play towards more open and ethical publishing models, for example, by gaining independency from for-profit commercial publishers. This type of action will result in lowering APCs while allowing to keep research resources within academia . Keep in mind that some countries impose constraints on these embargo periods. For example, in France, researchers are authorized to engage in green OA archiving of publications from work that has received public funds no matter the publisher's policy . You should check the policies of your institution and country to know when and in which repository you should deposit postprints.Often scholars and institutions do not have the funding to cover APCs to publish under a gold OA license. But even when published behind a paywall, these articles can be made OA via the green OA route is not only an option to save resources when submitting a new manuscript by saving APCs, it can also be of relevance for previously published, but pay-walled, work. Years ago, authors might not have considered the additional value of making research accessible to everyone (or may not even have had this option) and do now, in hindsight, regret their choice of not publishing OA. With the green OA route, authors can also make all their previous research accessible—better late than never! Depositing postprints in repositories is also a way to preserve the scientific literature since journals can disappear from the internet. Repositories, however, can also disappear. It is therefore important to consider features like ownership, preservation, and indexing when choosing a preprint repository. Similar to preprinting, when uploading your postprint you should provide a reference and link to the full paper on the title page of your manuscript—this will make the published paper easier to find and cite.Publishing Step 5: preregister your studyOSF) before data collection begins. There are also specific registries for animal experiments, such as the Animal Study Registry and Preclinicaltrials.eu. Preregistration can be useful to prevent questionable research practices (QRPs) such as p-hacking  and HARKing (Hypothesising After Results are Known)  . Both ofStep 6: publish a Registered ReportPreregistrations of studies (see Step 5) can also be submitted to a journal and undergo formal peer-review—with the resulting article type being called “Registered Report” (RR) . In geneAcademics can receive a provisional acceptance by a journal based on their submitted RR, thereby streamlining the submission and publication processes. RRs should not take more time than conventional publishing, because the time spent writing and reviewing the first half of a scientific paper is simply done before the experiment is conducted. It is therefore not more work but rather a reorganization of the different steps involved in the process. An additional advantage for the authors of RRs is the possibility to get feedback at a point in the research project when the experimental design can still be improved. This can have a significant impact on the welfare of the animals used in your research: Preregistering your test protocol, and its effect on the occurrence of QRPs, can be beneficial in terms of a better alignment of your research with the 3Rs principle. Feedback on RRs can flag outdated or suboptimal test designs/paradigms to answer specific research questions, effectively lowering the number of animals used in your research in the long term . It alsoAnimal Behavior & Cognition, accept RRs . PCI Registered Reports is dedicated to RRs.Several general journals as well as some journals in the animal science domain, such as Step 7: participate in Open peer-reviewPublons give peer-review recognition (see a comment about peer-review recognition) and allow reviewers to make their reviews public if they wish.The traditional journal evaluation process (i.e. peer-review) is often a black box where peers not involved in the process have limited insight into the discussions and criteria leading to the acceptance of published articles. Open peer-review (OPR) refers to a set of features that makes the full process of evaluation of scientific articles  open and transparent . Here, wPLoS One, eLife, and Royal Society Open Science have implemented the OPR option. To our knowledge, no disciplinary journals in animal science have yet adopted OPR within their evaluation system. The OS initiative Peer Community In (PCI) Animal Science and the Peer Community Journal, which belong to the parental project Peer Community In, provide a free process of OPR evaluation of preprints .For journals adopting OPR, the reviewer reports and the editorial decision are made public when the paper is published. The journal implementation of OPR is often made as an optional feature for the authors and reviewers. Some multidisciplinary journals like Frontiers In) or via independent platforms. These platforms can be used for the evaluation of published articles and preprints. Some examples are PREreview, F1000Research, Review Commons, Hypothes.is, and PubPeer.OPR can also take place after the publication of a manuscript by tools developed by journal publishers . Other actions require certain expertise and effort (e.g. building a DMP). We encourage you to adopt the OS practices presented here in your research. Start progressively, choosing those steps that you feel more comfortable with as a start, keeping in mind that the time you spend on implementing OS practices will be rewarded. As we expect OS to become nt Table .