Publish your Registered Report on F1000Research

“We believe that the value of science is in the rigor of the method, not the appeal of the results – an ethos at the heart of our publishing model. Choosing to publish your research as a Registered Report puts this into practice, by shifting the focus away from the results and back to the research question. Registered Reports can be used for research in almost any field of study, from psychology and neuroscience, to medicine or ecology.

 

Registered Reports on F1000Research follow a two-stage process: firstly, the Study Protocol (Stage 1) is published and peer-reviewed by subject experts before data collection begins. Then, once the research has been completed, the Research Article (Stage 2) is published, peer reviewed, and awarded a Registered Report badge.

 

F1000Research is the first publisher to combine the Registered Reports format with an open, post-publication peer review model. Alongside our open data policy, this format enhances credibility, and takes transparency and reproducibility in research to the next level….”

Open Research Europe

“Open Research Europe will be a scholarly publishing platform providing a full open access peer reviewed publishing service for Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe beneficiaries at no cost to them, during and after the end of their grants. The platform will enable rapid publication times and publication outputs that support research integrity, reproducibility and transparency and enable open science practices….”

Open Research Europe

“Open Research Europe will be a scholarly publishing platform providing a full open access peer reviewed publishing service for Horizon 2020 and Horizon Europe beneficiaries at no cost to them, during and after the end of their grants. The platform will enable rapid publication times and publication outputs that support research integrity, reproducibility and transparency and enable open science practices….”

Could this be the start of a new era in scholarly communication? – F1000 Blogs

“There are in fact a number of research publishing models in widespread use that are designed precisely to enable rapid publication of new findings (as a preprint does) while assuring expert and transparent peer review to support trust in, and decision-making around, an article’s potential use. F1000Research [13] developed such a publishing model for the life sciences in 2013, with a mandatory requirement that the underlying data and code are made FAIR (Finable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable) to support reproducibility of the findings and their use and reuse.  In addition, publications can be updated as new data comes in or new understanding is developed, thereby enabling the publication to track the ongoing research workflow – like a ‘living article’.

This model is now being extended out to all research disciplines, and major funders around the world also now have their own publishing platforms for their grantees utilising this same rapid and transparent publishing model, including Wellcome [14], the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation [15], the Irish Health Research Board [16], and later this year, the European Commission [17]. Indeed these platforms have seen a big upsurge in submissions on COVID-19 during this time due to the obvious benefits of this approach during such an emergency [for examples see 18, 19 and 20]. Furthermore, this model can bring considerable cost and efficiency gains: average article processing charges on Wellcome Open Research are 67% cheaper than the average Wellcome pays to other venues for Open Access [21], and the model enables the publication of a much broader range of outputs, helping to reduce research waste….”

Eurodoc Survey on Publishing in Open Science for Early Career Researchers

“Later this year, the European Commission will launch ‘Open Research Europe’ (ORE), an open access Publishing Platform for Horizon 2020 beneficiaries. ORE will offer rapid publication of a wide range of article types without editorial bias. All articles will benefit from transparent peer review and will be published under an open license. ORE is a significant step towards Open Science in Europe. Eurodoc, as an expert partner in the project, will ensure that the voice of early-career researchers is heard.

This survey aims to provide the ORE project team with insights related to awareness, perception and experience with open practices and tools, from the perspective of doctoral candidates and junior researchers. Let’s make an impact together!”

Our response to the UKRI OA Review – F1000 Blogs

“To add precision to the requirements of the UKRI’s OA policy, it would be helpful for the UKRI to make clear that all types of research-based articles that are submitted for peer review at publication outlets that meet the UKRI’s qualifying standards/criteria (and for which some sort of payment is required to secure OA – predominantly though an ‘Article Processing Charge’ (APC)) are covered by the policy….

The UKRI also needs to be clear about when it will ‘pay’ to enable OA.  For example:

would the policy apply if ‘at least one author’ has UKRI HE funding? 
if there are multi-funded authors listed on an article, and one or more of the authors have access to funds to support OA, what is the role of each funder? (i.e. do they split the costs? Is there a lead? Etc) …

UKRI should require an author or their institution to retain copyright AND specific reuse rights, including rights to deposit the author’s accepted manuscript in a repository in line with the deposit and licensing requirements of UKRI’s OA policy….

 

UKRI OA funds should not be permitted to support OA publication in hybrid journals…

 

While there are some benefits around transformative agreements – not least in terms of the simplicity of achieving OA for authors! – we do worry that such ‘big deals’ can effectively reduce author choice around publishing venue, effectively lock out OA-born and smaller publishers and have the potential to create and exacerbate inequalities in access to research across the globe; this does not therefore represent good value to the public (nor does it guarantee any kind of a sustainable model of publishing).

We would advise UKRI to consider how and where transformative deals can have unintended consequences in terms of lock-ins (and potential cost tie-ins) with specific publishers (often those operating at scale) while effectively making OA-born publishers work harder to engage and access researchers. …”

Our response to the UKRI OA Review – F1000 Blogs

“To add precision to the requirements of the UKRI’s OA policy, it would be helpful for the UKRI to make clear that all types of research-based articles that are submitted for peer review at publication outlets that meet the UKRI’s qualifying standards/criteria (and for which some sort of payment is required to secure OA – predominantly though an ‘Article Processing Charge’ (APC)) are covered by the policy….

The UKRI also needs to be clear about when it will ‘pay’ to enable OA.  For example:

would the policy apply if ‘at least one author’ has UKRI HE funding? 
if there are multi-funded authors listed on an article, and one or more of the authors have access to funds to support OA, what is the role of each funder? (i.e. do they split the costs? Is there a lead? Etc) …

UKRI should require an author or their institution to retain copyright AND specific reuse rights, including rights to deposit the author’s accepted manuscript in a repository in line with the deposit and licensing requirements of UKRI’s OA policy….

 

UKRI OA funds should not be permitted to support OA publication in hybrid journals…

 

While there are some benefits around transformative agreements – not least in terms of the simplicity of achieving OA for authors! – we do worry that such ‘big deals’ can effectively reduce author choice around publishing venue, effectively lock out OA-born and smaller publishers and have the potential to create and exacerbate inequalities in access to research across the globe; this does not therefore represent good value to the public (nor does it guarantee any kind of a sustainable model of publishing).

We would advise UKRI to consider how and where transformative deals can have unintended consequences in terms of lock-ins (and potential cost tie-ins) with specific publishers (often those operating at scale) while effectively making OA-born publishers work harder to engage and access researchers. …”

The University of Tsukuba and F1000 Research lead the way in Open Science with first open research publishing gateway to publish in Japanese – F1000 Blogs

“Today, the University of Tsukuba has announced that it has signed a contract with F1000 Research Ltd to develop the first open research publishing gateway that will enable researchers to publish in either English or Japanese.

Not only will the publishing gateway make it simple for authors affiliated with the University of Tsukuba to publish any research or data they wish to share rapidly, openly and transparently, but it will also enable those studying the humanities and social sciences to choose whether to publish in English or in Japanese.

Indeed, English holds a preeminent position as the “lingua franca” in international scientific communication, despite the majority of the world’s scholars not possessing English as their first language. This does not necessarily mean, however, that studies published in other languages are of less value or quality.

This forward-thinking publishing approach means that researchers specializing in fields such as humanities and social sciences will be able to publish in an international journal but choose which language they feel most comfortable writing in, as well as what befits their field of study the most.

Indeed, the humanities and social sciences fields are where publishing in a regional language would enable more profound understanding and knowledge sharing, given these academic disciplines are often dedicated to the study of philosophy, history, literature, society, law, economy, and so on of a specific culture. Japanese language research articles will include abstracts and metadata in both Japanese and English, and will be indexed in relevant bibliographic databases in both English and Japanese….”

The University of Tsukuba and F1000 Research lead the way in Open Science with first open research publishing gateway to publish in Japanese – F1000 Blogs

“Today, the University of Tsukuba has announced that it has signed a contract with F1000 Research Ltd to develop the first open research publishing gateway that will enable researchers to publish in either English or Japanese.

Not only will the publishing gateway make it simple for authors affiliated with the University of Tsukuba to publish any research or data they wish to share rapidly, openly and transparently, but it will also enable those studying the humanities and social sciences to choose whether to publish in English or in Japanese.

Indeed, English holds a preeminent position as the “lingua franca” in international scientific communication, despite the majority of the world’s scholars not possessing English as their first language. This does not necessarily mean, however, that studies published in other languages are of less value or quality.

This forward-thinking publishing approach means that researchers specializing in fields such as humanities and social sciences will be able to publish in an international journal but choose which language they feel most comfortable writing in, as well as what befits their field of study the most.

Indeed, the humanities and social sciences fields are where publishing in a regional language would enable more profound understanding and knowledge sharing, given these academic disciplines are often dedicated to the study of philosophy, history, literature, society, law, economy, and so on of a specific culture. Japanese language research articles will include abstracts and metadata in both Japanese and English, and will be indexed in relevant bibliographic databases in both English and Japanese….”

Publishers Invest in Preprints – The Scholarly Kitchen

“For years now, preprint communities have provided a glimmer of an alternative to the journal publishing system, that speed and efficiency might replace what has seemed to many like a cumbersome editorial and peer review process. What started in a small set of originating fields such as high energy physics in 1991 has, in recent years, begun to take hold elsewhere, including the biomedical sciences. Today, Ithaka S+R has published an overview of key developments in preprint communities, which are grappling with an array of policy issues as they seek to build trust in a contested information environment and build durable business strategies. 

Rob Johnson and Andrea Chiarelli recently looked at some of the options that publishers face in engaging with preprints. Today, we observe that beyond preprint communities that are typically organized around a field or set of fields, in recent years all the major publishers have made their own investments in preprint platforms. Publishers are integrating preprint deposit into their manuscript submission workflows, and adopting a common strategy designed to take back control of preprints….”