#elife — Public Fediverse posts

Reflecting on eLife's new publication model, 3 years in: "the most important thing we have learnt is that our new approach to publishing works. Authors, reviewers and editors routinely tell us that they have had a more constructive experience with the new approach."

https://elifesciences.org/articles/110392?_hsmi=98220609

Proud to be an eLife editor. eLife's publication model gets the best from everyone:
* from authors, who remain in control and can reply to reviewers without fear and without being overly apologetic or sycophantic;
* from reviewers, who engage constructively in a semi-anonymous way (they aren't anonymous neither to each other nor to the editors, all practicing scientists in their field), knowing that their comments are suggestions, not mandates for authors;
* and from editors, who don't have to deal with any nastiness from any party, everybody being far more relaxed that I've seen in any other journal, concentrating their efforts in the scientific content.

1/3

#eLife #ScientificPublishing

@elduvelle @albertcardona @neuralreckoning

To me this question seems to be the issue of the #eLife journal hypothesis: they are providing reviews on preprints. They are basically post-preprint review (like #PubPeer), but unlike PubPeer, they still think (at least they talk of themselves as) a journal.

I think what #eLife and #PubPeer are doing is great. But they cannot be listed in one's CV as "refereed publications" in the way that other gatekept* journals are.

... which gets at the point @jonmsterling made about separating "preprints", "refereed publications" and "titles I'm thinking about writing" (in preparation) on one's CV.

It would be interesting to see how #eLife is still being treated as a "journal" on CVs and for grants and promotion.

BTW, in an earlier discussion, we agreed that one could list eLife papers in one's CV as long as one also included the eLife assessment on one's CV. Wanna bet these authors don't? 🤔

* Yes, I know eLife is gatekept by editors, but the door is opened based on "interesting", not based on "correct". (And, yes, there is evidence that the Glam journals do that as well, but they are at least ostensibly _claiming_ to only publish papers that are "correct".)

#ScientificPublishing

Just got a reviewed preprint published @eLife :
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.108049

Based on this experience, publishing at #eLife is the best publication process I had so far: transparent, fast, thoughtful reviews and editorial consideration. If it's also easy to waive the APC fees for under-funded researchers, this makes it to me the most appealing journal in life sciences!

Oh the research question of the paper is about timing in decision making using our #HMP method on #EEG data. The assessment and reviews are very fair. We already have most results for the revision and it's looking very good as we identify further sensory and motor components using a more precise parametrization 🤩

✍️ New in #eLife: #CellSeg3D introduces #WNet3D, a self-supervised 3D #segmentation method for #microscopy data — no labels needed. Claims to outperform #Cellpose/#StarDist on 4 datasets. Includes #opensource plugin (#Napari) + full 3D annotated #cortex dataset. Will test it later.

🌍 https://elifesciences.org/articles/99848

#DeepLearning #Neuroscience

Excellent: "More than 100 institutions and funders worldwide have confirmed that research published in #eLife continues to be considered in hiring, promotion, and funding decisions, following the journal’s bold move to forgo its Journal Impact Factor."
https://elifesciences.org/for-the-press/bf74b86e/more-than-100-institutions-and-funders-confirm-recognition-of-elife-papers-signalling-support-for-open-science

PS: This is not just a step to support eLife, but a step to break the stranglehold of bad metrics in research assessment. For the same reason, it's a step toward more honest and less simplistic assessment.

#Academia #Assessment #JIF #Metrics #Universities
@academicchatter

Excellent: "More than 100 institutions and funders worldwide have confirmed that research published in #eLife continues to be considered in hiring, promotion, and funding decisions, following the journal’s bold move to forgo its Journal Impact Factor."
https://elifesciences.org/for-the-press/bf74b86e/more-than-100-institutions-and-funders-confirm-recognition-of-elife-papers-signalling-support-for-open-science

PS: This is not just a step to support eLife, but a step to break the stranglehold of bad metrics in research assessment. For the same reason, it's a step toward more honest and less simplistic assessment.

#Academia #Assessment #JIF #Metrics #Universities
@academicchatter

Excellent: "More than 100 institutions and funders worldwide have confirmed that research published in #eLife continues to be considered in hiring, promotion, and funding decisions, following the journal’s bold move to forgo its Journal Impact Factor."
https://elifesciences.org/for-the-press/bf74b86e/more-than-100-institutions-and-funders-confirm-recognition-of-elife-papers-signalling-support-for-open-science

PS: This is not just a step to support eLife, but a step to break the stranglehold of bad metrics in research assessment. For the same reason, it's a step toward more honest and less simplistic assessment.

#Academia #Assessment #JIF #Metrics #Universities
@academicchatter

Excellent: "More than 100 institutions and funders worldwide have confirmed that research published in #eLife continues to be considered in hiring, promotion, and funding decisions, following the journal’s bold move to forgo its Journal Impact Factor."
https://elifesciences.org/for-the-press/bf74b86e/more-than-100-institutions-and-funders-confirm-recognition-of-elife-papers-signalling-support-for-open-science

PS: This is not just a step to support eLife, but a step to break the stranglehold of bad metrics in research assessment. For the same reason, it's a step toward more honest and less simplistic assessment.

#Academia #Assessment #JIF #Metrics #Universities
@academicchatter

@eLife

I've been through this "consultation" sequence several times. In my experience, it is useless and a waste. Particularly since the whole point of #eLife is post-publication review (the paper is already out in a preprint by definition using the eLife system).

For post-publication peer-review, there is no issue about being slow. Slow is fine. The paper is already available.

Since the authors decide when the paper is "in its final form", there is no issue about suggestions for extra work.

#eLife needs to stand by their decision to do post-publication peer review. They are not a "gate-keeping journal". That's fine. (It's actually good for the role they are playing.)

#peerReview #sciencePublishing

Following up on the #eLife / #Clarivate saga, DORA has posted a statement:
https://sfdora.org/2024/11/25/clarivates-actions-regarding-elife-doras-response/

extracts:

"This development reinforces how a commercial entity such as Clarivate, can, through its ownership of scholarly databases and indices, hold the academic community to ransom. Clarivate’s announcement is disappointing as it both punishes innovation in peer review and disregards the important role of authors in deciding how and where their research should be published."

"As funders and institutions increasingly move away from using single metrics to assess research(ers), the role of Journal Impact Factors is becoming increasingly irrelevant."

"We therefore support eLife and encourage it to continue its innovation and encourage other journals to consider doing the same."

Go #eLife, Go AWAY #ImpactFactor!

#Academia #Publication #ScientificPublishers

@alexh

#HHMI is veering that way – preprints and open access in non-profit journals only. I wish the #WellcomeTrust, #MaxPlanckSociety and #ERC were to follow suit.

On @eLife , the article falls very short: at #eLife we've been publishing Reviewed Preprints at the same rate that we were publishing "traditional" articles before. See:

"eLife’s New Model: One year on" (2024) https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/66d43597/elife-s-new-model-one-year-on

and

"Scientific Publishing: The first year of a new era" (2024)
https://elifesciences.org/articles/96413

#ScientificPublishing

The #homonaledi papers might be the first high-profile test of #eLife new model of publishing reviewed preprints.

eLife reviewed the preprint and assessed it as follows: "... would be a landmark finding. However, the evidence for these claims is considered inadequate..."

https://elifesciences.org/reviewed-preprints/89106

At the same time, the Daily Princetonian reports that the "groundbreaking discoveries" have been "accepted" for publication.

https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2023/07/princeton-ancient-human-relatives-buried-in-south-africa-national-geographic-anthropology-professor

Nine publishers just expressed "full support" for the new White House #OSTP guidelines for federal agency #openaccess policies.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/975032

"Our main message is simple: publishing in any journal published by this group already meets or exceeds the requirements outlined in the OSTP memo."

The signatory publishers are #Copernicus Publications, #eLife, #Frontiers, #JMIR Publications, #MDPI, Open Library of Humanities (#OLH), #PeerJ, #PLOS, and #Ubiquity Press.

Nine publishers just expressed "full support" for the new White House #OSTP guidelines for federal agency #openaccess policies.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/975032

"Our main message is simple: publishing in any journal published by this group already meets or exceeds the requirements outlined in the OSTP memo."

The signatory publishers are #Copernicus Publications, #eLife, #Frontiers, #JMIR Publications, #MDPI, Open Library of Humanities (#OLH), #PeerJ, #PLOS, and #Ubiquity Press.

Nine publishers just expressed "full support" for the new White House #OSTP guidelines for federal agency #openaccess policies.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/975032

"Our main message is simple: publishing in any journal published by this group already meets or exceeds the requirements outlined in the OSTP memo."

The signatory publishers are #Copernicus Publications, #eLife, #Frontiers, #JMIR Publications, #MDPI, Open Library of Humanities (#OLH), #PeerJ, #PLOS, and #Ubiquity Press.

Nine publishers just expressed "full support" for the new White House #OSTP guidelines for federal agency #openaccess policies.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/975032

"Our main message is simple: publishing in any journal published by this group already meets or exceeds the requirements outlined in the OSTP memo."

The signatory publishers are #Copernicus Publications, #eLife, #Frontiers, #JMIR Publications, #MDPI, Open Library of Humanities (#OLH), #PeerJ, #PLOS, and #Ubiquity Press.

Nine publishers just expressed "full support" for the new White House #OSTP guidelines for federal agency #openaccess policies.
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/975032

"Our main message is simple: publishing in any journal published by this group already meets or exceeds the requirements outlined in the OSTP memo."

The signatory publishers are #Copernicus Publications, #eLife, #Frontiers, #JMIR Publications, #MDPI, Open Library of Humanities (#OLH), #PeerJ, #PLOS, and #Ubiquity Press.