KEY TAKEAWAY

• More than 100 institutions have declared their support for eLife’s reviewed preprint model, following the journal’s loss of impact factor.

Rather than only accepting papers recommended for publication by peer reviewers, eLife publishes all reviewed research as reviewed preprints. However, Clarivate, the provider of Web of Science, only indexes peer reviewed content, resulting in the loss of eLife’s impact factor for 2025. Rather than changing their publishing model, eLife agreed to be partially indexed in Web of Science’s Emerging Sources Citation Index (ESCI). But how has this been received?

As reported in Research Information, eLife surveyed over 100 institutions and funders to assess how their publishing model is viewed. Over 95% of respondents endorsed non-traditional publishing approaches like eLife’s, confirming publications will continue to be factored into hiring, promotion, and funding decisions.

Promoting integrity or outdated metrics?

Dr Nandita Quaderi, Senior Vice President and Editor-in-Chief of the Web of Science at Clarivate, stressed that policies must be applied universally to protect research integrity. Quaderi warned that “cover-to-cover indexing of journals in which publication is decoupled from validation by peer review risks allowing untrustworthy actors to benefit from publishing poor quality content”.

On the other hand, Ashley Farley, Senior Officer of Knowledge & Research Services at the Gates Foundation, believes Web of Science’s policy “reinforces outdated publishing metrics that hinder innovation”, while Damian Pattinson, Executive Director at eLife, noted that with increasing emphasis on open science, “eLife remains confident that its model represents the future of scholarly publishing – one that prioritises scientific quality, transparency, and integrity over outdated prestige metrics”.

“eLife remains confident that its model represents the future of scholarly publishing – one that prioritises scientific quality, transparency, and integrity over outdated prestige metrics.”
– Damian Pattinson, eLife

As debates over the future of the impact factor continue, Farley believes that “indexers must evolve to support responsible, transparent models like eLife’s”.

—————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS 

• The International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers’ Research Identity Verification Framework aims to tackle fraudulent submissions, including from paper mills.
• The framework of layered identity checks for researchers, peer reviewers, and editors aims to raise obstacles to misconduct and enhance transparency, while maintaining inclusivity for all authentic researchers.

Research is facing an unprecedented integrity challenge, with sophisticated paper mills publishing poor-quality and fraudulent papers by unverifiable researchers and fake personas. To combat this issue, the International Association of Scientific, Technical & Medical Publishers (STM) has developed a Research Identity Verification Framework, released for community review. In an interview with Retraction Watch, Hylke Koers, Chief Information Officer at STM, shared how the framework could be used by journals and institutions to verify the identity of researchers.

Why is the framework needed?

Currently, publishers rely on time-consuming manual checks to validate the identity of contributors such as authors, peer reviewers, or guest editors. These processes do not match the speed and organisation of fraudulent networks. Part of the problem lies in the ease with which untraceable digital identities can be created and used to manipulate key parts of the publishing pipeline, for example, suggesting a fake reviewer. New approaches are needed to tackle this growing issue.

How will the framework be used?

The framework introduces a layered, systemic method of identity verification. Suggested methods include asking individuals to:

• validate an institutional email address
• sign in via ORCiD or use ORCiD Trust Markers
• provide a government document, such a passport or driving licence.

Koers notes that implementing these checks would make impersonation or identity theft more difficult and improve accountability, while multiple options for verification retain accessibility. Publishers are advised to assess the level of risk, asking “how confident can we be that this person is who they claim to be, and that the information they’ve provided is genuine?”.

“Implementing these checks would make impersonation or identity theft more difficult and improve accountability”

What are the next steps?

The success of the Research Identity Verification Framework will rely on widespread adoption. The STM plans to collaborate with early adopters to develop practical implementation pathways and refine future recommendations.

Koers notes that ultimately, no framework can eliminate all fraud, but making it more difficult to act fraudulently and easier to trace and respond to publishing misconduct should have a positive impact.

—————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Inclusive publishing recognises the value of all validated research in enhancing scientific reproducibility and progress.
• Publishers must embrace inclusive practices to reflect diversity within the scientific landscape.

Inclusive journals value null results, preliminary data, and experimental design papers, which promote reproducibility and can hasten innovation. Unlike selective journals, which prioritise ‘high impact’ discoveries, inclusive journals recognise that research does not need to be ground-breaking to be an advancement. In a Springer Nature article, Ritu Dhand discusses the benefits of inclusive publishing.

COVID-19: a case study

Dhand highlights how the COVID-19 crisis created an unprecedented need for peer-reviewed science. Journals responded by adopting inclusive publishing practices, recognising the importance of preliminary data and innovative methods. The rapid dissemination of pilot studies and null results enabled scientists worldwide to focus precious time and effort on pushing unexplored frontiers. Inclusive publishing proved pivotal in an extraordinary global effort to compress drug discovery timelines from years to months. However, these inclusive practices faded after the pandemic.

The price of selectivity

Dhand notes that 50% of research is unpublished. Rather than lacking scientific rigour, most rejections occur because journal editors consider the research to lack significance. A study prepared for the European Commission estimated that in 2018, €26 billion was wasted on duplicated research in Europe alone.

50% of funded research is unpublished. Rather than lacking scientific rigour, most rejections occur because journal editors consider the research to lack significance.

Value beyond citation metrics

Inclusive journals often publish a high number of papers, leading to lower impact factors. However, the value of the research can be measured by other metrics. For example, over a third of Springer Nature’s inclusive content addresses the UN Sustainable Development Goals, demonstrating its societal impact.

Diversity in research publication

Inclusive publication practices also involve increasing the diversity of authors and countries contributing research. Dhand highlights that a similar proportion of research publications are from Western Nations and Asia, yet editorial boards and reviewers remain Western dominated. As key decision makers, individuals in these roles should reflect the diversity of the research communities.

Dhand acknowledges that selective journals will continue to offer a platform for ground-breaking research, but highlights the need for widespread inclusive publication practices to satisfy the evolving needs of science and society.

—————————————————

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Challenges with securing peer reviewers may not be linked to a “shrinking reviewer pool” but underutilisation of the wider global pool.
• New approaches, such as developing fit-for-purpose search tools, engaging junior experts, and offering viable compensation, may help journals source new peer reviewers.

Peer review is key to scientific integrity, so why is it becoming increasingly difficult for journals to secure peer reviewers? This topic was explored in a recent Springer Nature article authored by Arunas Radzvilavicius. The huge increase in peer review requests through the publication boom of the last 20 years has made it harder for journals to match peer reviewers. But does this reflect a shrinking reviewer pool?

In fact, the number of potential reviewers is growing at a faster rate than publications, according to Radzvilavicius. This suggests the ‘reviewer shortage’ is due to limitations in the methods for matching reviewers. Radzvilavicius describes barriers to securing peer reviewers:

• repeat invitations to the same individuals
• high reviewer workloads
• distrust of commercial publishers
• lack of viable incentives.

“Journals should tap into the global reviewer pool to address the ‘reviewer shortage’.”

Alternative approaches to finding reviewers

Radzvilavicius emphasises journals should tap into the global reviewer pool to address the ‘reviewer shortage’. Journals could:

• Substitute Google Scholar for more advanced, impartial peer review tools. Radzvilavicius describes Google Scholar as a go-to method of sourcing reviewers, but its algorithms are unclear and prone to bias. Fit-for-purpose tools should be developed with global coverage, regular updates, automated invitation/acceptance rate tracking, and filters to avoid over-used reviewers.
• Utilise AI. Automating time-intensive tasks, such as verifying statistics and ethics statements, through large language models would significantly reduce reviewers’ workloads.
• Engage junior expert reviewers. Highlight the opportunities for career progression and acknowledgement that peer review offers, and provide workshops and networking events.
• Introduce financial compensation. To address concerns that incentivising peer review may impact quality, Radzvilavicius argues that the opposite may be true: “paying for the service allows you to demand a high-quality product”.  

Radzvilavicius emphasises that there are “plenty of reviewers worldwide” – we just need better ways of finding them. Changing the approach could offer broad benefits, accelerating quality peer review.

—————————————————

As the demand for expedited publications continues to rise, scientific publishers face growing pressure to balance speed of publication with rigour of review. Rapid publication timelines – once an exception – are becoming more common, with manuscripts moving from submission to publication in a matter of weeks rather than months. How can publishers uphold quality standards in compliance with industry guidelines under such time constraints? Following his involvement in the session ‘Sustaining publication quality in a fast-paced world’ at the 2025 ISMPP European meeting, The Publication Plan caught up with Sam Cavana, Head of Publishing Solutions at Taylor & Francis Group to find out. 

During the session ‘Sustaining publication quality in a fast-paced world’ at the 2025 ISMPP European meeting, we heard that fast-track publications are becoming increasingly common, with timelines shrinking significantly. What do you see as the key factors driving the uptake of fast-track publication options? 

We run a regular survey at Taylor & Francis to understand the key reasons for choosing accelerated publication. The primary reasons are:  

• to publish on novel topics to get the information out to the research community as quickly as possible  

• to hit key deadlines for publishing the work, eg, to impact key discussions scheduled with healthcare authorities, to present at a conference, to time it to coincide with other planned publications  

• to make the content available and accessible as quickly as possible when there is a direct impact on patient care 

• to obtain peer review comments as quickly as possible to enable extra time for discussion of revisions and other publication planning activities.  

Bringing a scientific manuscript from inception to publication is a complex process with many steps and contributors. How do publishers maintain the integrity and reliability of scientific literature when implementing fast-track publication processes? 

Taylor & Francis ensures that publication of all manuscripts, whether via the standard track or accelerated track, is of the same high quality, integrity, and reliability. Publishing on an accelerated route does not change any editorial processes, and we expect reviewers to spend just as much time carefully reviewing an accelerated manuscript as they would any other. The key differences are that reviewers are usually found more quickly for accelerated papers, those reviewers are given shorter deadlines to complete their review, and, once peer reviewed, editors will assess those papers more promptly to make a decision.   

“Publishing on an accelerated route does not change any editorial processes and we expect reviewers to spend just as much time carefully reviewing an accelerated manuscript as they would any other.” 

Beyond the publisher’s role, authors and industry scientists clearly have a key part to play in the process. What are some of the common pitfalls they encounter during fast-track publication development? What guidance would you offer to ensure a smooth experience?  

We would recommend that all content is complete at submission, with any authors available to provide responses in a timely manner. This includes at both revision and proof stage. Ensure decisions regarding copyright and open access are made up front, so there are no discussions that may delay timely publication. Don’t hesitate to contact the publisher if there are specific requirements, dates you need to publish by, or questions you need to ascertain prior to submission.

Emerging technologies like artificial intelligence (AI) and machine learning are beginning to influence various aspects of scientific publishing. Could technologies like these enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of peer review in fast-track publishing? 

Taylor & Francis is already using AI tools to help us match some submitted manuscripts with appropriate reviewers. Finding the right reviewers for a paper can be a time-consuming process, so this technology can really help to improve efficiency of the process. We also use specialist AI-powered tools like CrossRef Similarity Check and Image Twin to perform checks on submitted manuscripts, identifying potential cases of plagiarism or image manipulation for further investigation. Beyond this, Taylor & Francis doesn’t have plans to use AI in the actual reviewing of research articles, and editorial decisions will always be made by a human. Our AI policy is that reviewers and editors must not upload manuscripts they are reviewing to generative AI systems, as doing so may pose a risk to confidentiality and rightsholders’ intellectual property.  

“Finding the right reviewers for a paper can be a time-consuming process, so [AI] technology can really help to improve efficiency of the process.” 

 When publications move through peer review at an accelerated pace, maintaining reproducibility and transparency could be challenging. What measures are in place to promote these standards in research findings published through accelerated channels? How do publishers address potential ethical challenges that may arise from the pressure to publish rapidly, such as conflicts of interest or data integrity issues? 

All papers follow COPE, ICMJE, and GPP 2022 guidelines, this wouldn’t change based on the speed of review. All papers are subject to the same policies in accelerated publication as in traditional publication. Open research practices are a key element in the promotion of reproducibility and transparency. Our data sharing policies encourage researchers to deposit their data in a repository before submission, so the availability of these data shouldn’t be impacted by the speed of the review and publication process. Any conflicts of interest would be picked up in Taylor & Francis’ screening processes and data issues picked up in the peer review process. Publishing on an accelerated route does not change editorial decisions or impact the screening processes. 

Elsewhere at the ISMPP meeting you championed the role of video explainers in the dissemination of scientific information. With visual media gaining popularity – especially among younger healthcare professionals – is it possible to integrate enhanced publication content types into fast-track publications to enhance engagement and impact? 

Accelerated publication for video articles and abstracts is available. To ensure accelerated publication timelines are met, we suggest providing a storyboard at submission rather than the final video. If there are comments on the video, it may mean that the video will need to be recorded again.  

The Video Journal of Biomedicine offers an accelerated publication option for standalone video articles. This follows the same process as a traditional manuscript. With video articles or abstracts, make sure that the authors are aware that they need to be available for the revision of the storyboard and that after provisional acceptance of the storyboard, no editorial changes can be made once the video has been created.  If the authors are creating the video, ensure that you have all stakeholders aware of the timelines for the accelerated publication route, so no delays are introduced at this stage.  

Internally, we have seen extenders significantly increase views of an article, and we look forward to presenting our findings in a poster at the 21st Annual Meeting of ISMPP in Washington, DC. 

Looking ahead, how do you see fast-track scientific publishing evolving? What criteria should be used to determine when fast-tracking is appropriate – and when a more traditional timeline is the better option? 

Taylor & Francis has offered accelerated publication in a small list of biomedical titles for over 15 years, and we will be expanding this service to a few select titles in our Medicine & Health portfolio in 2025 to offer a wider range of options to our customers in the industry. Taylor & Francis doesn’t have any plans to introduce this service to journals within other subject areas. As for whether the standard or accelerated route is most appropriate for a paper, that decision will be one for the person or team planning the publication, be it a medical communications agency or pharmaceutical company, rather than us. Our role is to provide publishing options to the community and to ensure that the highest standards of publishing excellence are maintained.  

“Whether the standard or accelerated route is most appropriate for a paper, [is a] decision for the person or team planning the publication, be it a medical communications agency or pharmaceutical company” 

 Sam Cavana is Head of Publishing Solutions at Taylor & Francis Group and can be contacted via LinkedIn. All views and opinions expressed in this article are those of Sam Cavana and do not necessarily represent those of Taylor & Francis. 

—————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Recent studies suggest that, even when provided with a definition, the general public remains unclear on what a preprint is.
• The public’s perception of research credibility depends more on the broader framing of research findings than on disclosure of preprint status.

Decades after their introduction, preprints have become a well-established concept within the scientific community. Recent years have seen some publishers move entirely to a reviewed preprint model and organisations such as the ICMJE release updated guidance for authors and editors alike. But what about the public? While those in medical publishing have been debating how best to maintain the speed of preprints while introducing further checks and balances, findings reported in preprints are increasingly being picked up by general news outlets. In an article for Science, Jeffrey Brainard delved into the latest research on public understanding of preprints to examine the risks and benefits of this trend.

Preprint ‘disclaimers’ are not enough

As highlighted by Brainard, two recent studies suggest that – even when preprints are clearly labelled as such – public understanding of preprint status, and its potential implications for reported research, remains low.

In one study, researchers gave over 1,700 US adults adapted versions of real news articles describing preprint-reported study results. After reading the articles, just 30% of participants were able to define ‘preprint’ in a way that showed some understanding of the term. When students were excluded, this proportion almost halved.

Only 17% of the general public understand what a preprint is.

Some versions of the news articles included a definition of the term preprint and an explanation that the findings had not been peer reviewed. Surprisingly, this had little effect on the understanding of the general public, although it did improve students’ ability to define preprints.

Context matters

Another study found that rather than a simple disclosure of preprint status, the wider framing of the article had the most impact on public perception of research credibility. Stronger, more definitive language makes findings appear more trustworthy, while ‘hedging’ language reduces trust.

How to improve public understanding of preprints?

These findings suggest that disclosure of preprint status alone may not be enough to build public understanding. Dr Alice Fleerackers, co-author of both studies, argues that the scientific community must also do more to help the public understand how peer review works. Striking the right balance between speed and credibility of reporting seems likely to remain a key challenge for researchers and communicators.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• Most journals surveyed do not allow authors to submit PLS, often citing a perceived lack of demand from readers or authors.
• Existing PLS practices are inconsistent in format, peer review processes, and indexing methods.

Plain language summaries (PLS) have the power to unlock science for everyone – so why are they still missing from many medical journals? A recent article by Slávka Baróniková and colleagues, published in European Medical Writers Association (EMWA)’s journal Medical Writing, presents the results of a survey conducted by Open Pharma in 2022–2023. The survey explored how journal editors and publishers view the role of PLS in scientific publishing and whether current practices align with Open Pharma’s recommendations for clear and accessible research communication.

73% of journals surveyed did not allow author-submitted PLS, citing reasons such as a perceived lack of reader or author demand, lack of relevance to journal content, and insufficient resources.

The 16-question survey gathered responses from 29 individuals across 26 individual journals and 7 publisher portfolios. Here are the main findings:

• Most journals do not support PLS submission: 73% of journals surveyed did not allow author-submitted PLS.
• PLS practices are inconsistent: Among journals that did accept PLS, formats, placement, peer review, and indexing practices varied widely.
• Peer review and discoverability are limited: Fewer than half of the journals that published PLS peer reviewed them or used appropriate PubMed metatags. Only one journal reported consistent use of the PLS metatag, which is crucial for indexing.
• Perceived barriers include lack of demand: Common reasons for not accepting PLS included a perceived lack of reader or author demand, lack of relevance to journal content, and insufficient resources.
• Most journals recognise the potential for PLS to increase readership: Patients, healthcare professionals, and students were seen as key audiences for PLS.

Despite progress by some publishers, the survey highlights an ongoing need for greater standardisation, more consistent peer review, and improved visibility of PLS. It also revealed that some respondents were unsure of their own journal’s PLS policies, underscoring the need for better internal communication and training.

The authors urge journals to adopt Open Pharma’s recommendations and strengthen their PLS policies to ensure that PLS are accessible, discoverable, and scientifically accurate.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• eLife adopted a ‘reviewed preprint’ publishing model in 2023, publishing all reviewed papers, regardless of reviewer recommendation.
• Clarivate has since updated its policies to no longer provide impact factors for journals that publish papers that are not endorsed by peer review.

As reported in Research Professional News, the non-profit research journal eLife will not receive an impact factor rating from Web of Science in 2025, following implementation of a new policy by Web of Science provider Clarivate. Under eLife’s ‘reviewed preprint’ model adopted in 2023, all submitted research papers that undergo peer review are published, regardless of whether reviewers recommended them for publication. In response to the growing trend of journals decoupling publication from peer review, Clarivate introduced its policy to index only content that is validated by peer review. ​

“[Clarivate’s policy] reflects our commitment to support the integrity of the scholarly record through curation and selectivity in the Web of Science.” – Nandita Quaderi, editor-in-chief, Web of Science

eLife, a signatory of the Declaration on Research Assessment, opposes the reliance on metrics like the impact factor and has reiterated its commitment to meaningful research assessment, stating that its model is closer to the ideal of how scientific discourse should work.

This development will inevitably spark discussion about the pros and cons of traditional metrics in research assessment. eLife’s innovative model challenges the conventional take on peer review, prompting the scientific community to reconsider how best to measure research impact and quality. As the peer review and publishing landscape evolves, this case underscores the need for ongoing dialogue about practices that best serve the advancement of science.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• ScholCommLab research shows that preprint servers are implementing more moderation measures as they attempt to improve preprint credibility.
• The authors warn against compromising the very attributes that make preprints invaluable, namely “speed, accessibility, and low barriers to entry”.

A recent article by the London School of Economics examined the challenges associated with enhancing preprint credibility. Research by ScholCommLab suggests that attempts to mitigate the dissemination of unchecked content through increased moderation may risk undermining the accessibility and speed that make preprints such a valuable method of sharing scientific information.

Preprint credibility concerns

The authors remind us of how preprints emerged as an essential tool for the rapid dissemination of new information throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. While preprints were covered by the media at “an unprecedented rate” during that time, journalists are now being more selective about their use due to concerns around lack of peer review. Arguably, one of the most significant barriers to broader preprint adoption is the concept that they are of lesser quality and not as reliable as peer-reviewed articles. Critics also question their potential for circulating misinformation, which ultimately damages public trust in science.

While the introduction of credibility measures may boost preprint adoption, the authors warn that this may come at a price.

Measures to improve preprint credibility

ScholCommLab’s findings from interviews with preprint server managers strongly refute any claims that servers allow the spread of unchecked information. Rather, they have “a strong sense of responsibility toward their communities, the scholarly record, and the public” and feel under pressure to screen preprints for flawed content that could be misleading. As such, servers are introducing more and more measures to address concerns over credibility, including:

• methods and data reporting badges
• community endorsements
• annotations
• aligning more closely with peer-reviewed journals’ editorial workflows.

The downsides of increased moderation

While the introduction of credibility measures may boost preprint adoption, the authors warn that this may come at a price, such as by:

• restricting preprints to manuscripts or other formats congruent with journal peer review
• slowing the availability of new research
• reducing economic viability
• undermining the core strengths associated with preprints (ie, “openness, flexibility, and accessibility”)
• excluding “disadvantaged researchers”, such as those at the beginning of their career and/or at less established institutions.

The authors emphasise the importance of ensuring that preprints’ benefits are not diminished, and ask the community to consider the implications of gatekeeping methods, particularly in relation to future global health crises.

————————————————–

KEY TAKEAWAYS

• From January 2025, The BMJ is offering £50 or a 12-month online subscription to a BMJ journal for patients and members of the public who review an article.
• The BMJ hopes the policy will help to expand and diversify participation from its patient and public reviewers.

Patients, advocates, and public reviewers play an important role in the reporting of medical research by offering their lived experiences and perspectives. Starting from January 2025, The BMJ is complementing the 12-month BMJ online subscription given to all reviewers, adding £50 or a 12-month online subscription to any BMJ journal for patient and public reviewers.

The BMJ introduced patient and public reviews in 2014 and have accumulated over 2,600 patient and public reviews across various article types. These help to evaluate:

• the relevance and importance of research questions
• the appropriateness of outcome measures
• how patient and public involvement is reported.

The new BMJ policy aligns with National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) guidelines on payments for public involvement in research and aims to:

• compensate the time and effort of patient and public reviewers
• expand and diversify patient reviewer participation.

Expanding representation in patient and public reviews

While The BMJ has over 1,000 engaged patient and public reviewers from over 20 countries, most reviews in the past decade were conducted by women based in the UK and US. The experiences of patient reviewers for The BMJ are positive, and their feedback has helped develop further guidance and training. Feedback from current reviewers and an international patient and public advisory panel also underpins the latest change in compensation.

The BMJ hopes that remuneration will diversify participation in reviews and increase representation.

The BMJ hopes that remuneration will diversify participation in reviews and increase representation across:

• geographic locations
• ethnicities
• genders
• areas of lived patient experiences.

How will this change the future of peer review?

The BMJ announcement acknowledges the value of patient perspectives in medical research, sitting alongside other initiatives to amplify patient engagement in scientific publications and address barriers to participation. However, broader discussions persist around whether clinical peer reviewers should be compensated and how to sustainably improve the peer review process while maintaining quality and integrity. The BMJ plan to monitor the impact of the new policy – we look forward to reading their updates.

————————————————–