Open Access Peer Review
Peer Review
The Peer Review Process
Peer review of articles on F1000Research takes place after publication; once the article is published, expert reviewers are formally invited to review under our open and transparent peer review model. To improve the consistency of definitions and terminology in peer review, F1000Research uses the NISO standard terminology for peer review to summarise our peer review process as:
- Identity transparency: All identities visible
- Reviewer interacts with: Editor, other reviewers, authors
- Review information published: Review reports, submitted manuscript, reviewer identities
- Post publication commenting: Open
More information is available on Peer review process for articles section of the How it Works page.
The peer review process for F1000Research is led by the authors, which means you are responsible for identifying appropriate experts from relevant fields. Before an article can be published, authors must suggest at least 5 reviewers who meet our reviewer criteria. These criteria and a guide to finding reviewers for your article can be found Finding Article Reviewers page.
To ensure balance and to facilitate the peer review process the editorial team may also suggest suitable reviewers where required.
If your study includes complex statistical analysis or new statistical methods, please ensure that at least one of your initial reviewer suggestions has a proven track record as a statistics expert, and be aware that we may ask you to suggest additional statistics experts as the peer review process progresses.
Authors should not approach reviewers about the peer review process independently, as this has the potential to influence and invalidate their review.
The Editorial Team’s Role
The editorial team are here to support authors during the peer review process, and are responsible for a number of tasks:
- ensuring the reviewer criteria are met;
- acting as the intermediary between authors and reviewers;
- contacting the reviewers;
- ensuring all aspects of an article are reviewed;
- checking the peer review reports before they are published.
Understanding Peer Review Reports and Statuses
On F1000Research peer review reports are published alongside your article with the names and affiliations of the reviewers. This allows for a transparent discussion of the strength and weaknesses of an article and lets you know exactly what issues, if any, the reviewers have identified. Each peer review report also contains answers to the reviewer questions tailored to each article type published on F1000Research. See our Reviewer Guidelines for more information on what to expect from reviews.
Peer reviewers will award your article one of 3 Approval statuses:
- Approved: No or only minor changes are required. For original research, this means that the aims and research methods are adequate; results are presented accurately, and the conclusions are justified and supported by the presented data or supporting material. Reviewers may suggest small changes to improve the article or correct minor errors, but these changes will not affect the peer review status.
- Approved with Reservations: The reviewer believes the article has academic merit, but has asked for a number of small changes to the article, or specific, sometimes more significant revisions. Reviewers should have made clear that the changes requested are necessary for an Approved status to be awarded.
- Not Approved: The article in its current form has issues that seriously undermine the findings and conclusions. Crucial substantial revisions will be required for the paper to pass peer review. It is important to note that that a Not Approved status is not a rejection. It is possible to improve an article’s status from Not Approved to Approved upon publication of a new version.
An article is considered to have been sufficiently reviewed when it has received two peer review reports. If an article has not passed peer review at this stage authors will be strongly encouraged to revise their new paper and respond to their reviewers by publishing a new version. An article is considered to have passed peer review when at least two ‘Approved’ statuses, or one ‘Approved’ and two ‘Approved with Reservations’ have been awarded by reviewers.
Some articles will have more than two peer review reports. This is generally because more than two reviewers accepted the initial invitation to review the paper, or the paper required special expertise provided by a third reviewer.
Revising and Responding to Reviewers
We encourage authors to revise and respond to their reviewers after receiving two peer review reports. This includes revising your article to address questions or minor errors identified in reviews awarding Approved statuses.
When a new version is published the original reviewers are re-invited to review. Reviewers can then publish an updated report, taking the revisions into account. Reviewers are especially encouraged to re-review if they had originally given an ‘Approved with Reservations’ or ‘Not Approved’ status, as they are asked to assess whether the work has been sufficiently improved to achieve a better approval status.
Authors should also provide a direct point-by-point response to each reviewer when they submit the revised article version - the response should explain how each of the reviewers’ comments have been addressed in the revisions. This greatly assists the original reviewers when it comes to re-reviewing the article. It also signals to other potential reviewers that feedback is being taken into consideration, making it more likely that further reviewers will agree to review the article.
At this point reviewers may update the peer review status awarded to an article or if there are unresolved issues authors will be encouraged to revise again. All versions of the article, and all peer review reports, will remain published so that anyone may see the history of the article.
For more information about how to submit revised article versions, please see our Article Guidelines (New Versions) page.
Article Submission
Publication &
Data Deposition
Data Deposition
Open Peer Review
& User Commenting
& User Commenting
Article Revision