Everything you need to know about the F1000 post-publication open peer review process
At F1000, we take a progressive approach to peer review.
As pioneers in open research, we are proud to be the first publisher to offer a fully open and transparent post-publication peer review process. Our innovative model puts transparency center-stage so that peer review becomes an open, collaborative conversation within the research community.
Here, you’ll find everything you need to know as an F1000 author, including:
How our open peer review model works
Your role in the peer review process
Why all F1000 publishing venues use open peer review
How to become a peer reviewer
download our free GUIDE
How to find peer reviewers
Fill in the form below to learn how to find and suggest suitable reviewers for your research.
Here’s the free guide you requested!
Click here to download as a PDF. If you gave us permission to contact you, we’ll also send a copy to your inbox with a bonus resource.
What is open peer review?
Traditional closed peer review typically follows a single-blind or double-blind process, where authors do not know who the reviewers are, or neither authors nor reviewers know the others’ identity. This allows journal editors and reviewers to act as curators of knowledge, deciding what research is published where.
Open peer review is the term used to describe any peer review model where aspects of research evaluation are publicly available. Some of the most common hallmarks of open peer review include open identities, open peer review reports, and open participation from the research community.
How does open peer review work at F1000?
At F1000, we believe that conducting peer review openly not only makes it easier to know if research can be trusted, but also ensures articles are judged on the quality of the research, not the novelty of the findings.
All F1000 publishing venues operate a post-publication open peer review model. This means that accepted articles are published before peer review takes place. Post-publication peer review allows research to be viewed and cited immediately, while signaling that the article is awaiting review by experts in the field.
Peer review reports are published alongside the article for anyone to read.
Reviewer names and affiliations are published with the peer review report.
Any registered users can comment on the article to engage indiscussion.
As part of our peer review process, accepted authors are asked to suggest five potential reviewers for their article. Our Editorial team will work with you to ensure your chosen reviewers meet our criteria. Take a look at the guide below to understand each step of our peer review process.
Why do F1000 publishing venues use open peer review?
To start open and transparent conversations.
To allow research to be cited immediately.
To reduce the possibility of bias.
To empower authors to lead the process.
To enable open, constructive feedback.
To improve the quality of peer review.
To increase opportunities for collaboration.
Understanding peer review reports and statuses
Open peer review
Awaiting peer review
All articles are labeled with the status ‘Awaiting peer review’ immediately upon publication. This is to signal to readers that the research is yet to be reviewed by expert reviewers. As soon as a peer review report is published, the peer review status is updated to reflect the article’s new approval status.
Open peer review
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. A peer review report accompanied by a green tick indicates that the article has been ‘Approved’.
Open peer review
Approved with reservations
The reviewer believes the article has academic merit but has asked for several 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. A peer review report accompanied by a green question mark indicates that the article has been ‘Approved with reservations’.
Open peer review
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 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. A peer review report accompanied by a red cross indicates that the article is ‘Not approved’.
Finding appropriate reviewers for your article
Authors are empowered to lead the peer review process on F1000 publishing venues and must provide at least five reviewer suggestions that meet our reviewer criteria before an article can be published. After publication, authors are expected to continue suggesting reviewers until at least two reviews have been received. Reviewers should be:
Reviewers should typically hold a doctorate (Ph.D./MD/MBBS or equivalent). Exceptions will be made for scholarly disciplines where doctorates are not necessary.
Reviewers should not have any competing interests that can bias their assessment of the article. They should not be close collaborators of authors or be personally associated with them.
Reviewers should have published at least three articles as lead author in a relevant topic, with at least one article having been published in the last five years.
We require that reviewers are from different institutions. We also strongly encourage authors to suggest geographically-diverse reviewers to gain an international perspective on the article.
Responding to reviewers
We encourage authors to 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.
Authors who choose to submit a revised article version should provide a direct point-by-point response to each reviewer when they submit. The response should explain how each of the reviewers’ comments have been addressed in the revisions.
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.
Becoming a peer reviewer
If you’d like to be a peer reviewer for one of our publishing venues, we’d love to hear from you. Please contact our Editorial office to express your interest. When contacting us, please attach a copy of your CV and complete this form, so that we can be sure you meet our Reviewer Criteria. Don’t hesitate to let us know if there is a particular article you would like to be considered for, however please keep in mind that it is up to the authors whether they would like you to review their article.