#elife — Public Fediverse posts

"Veronika Koren talks about pursuing a theory of neural coding that doesn’t fit a simple narrative, and the resilience it took to see it through."
https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/75921c16/inside-discovery-where-theory-meets-biology

Q: "The first version of the article was described as "Incomplete" in the eLife Assessment. How did you feel about this, and what changes did you make to take that assessment to “Convincing”?"

A: "Our paper does not have a simple storyline but rather draws a somewhat intricate but deep link between a mathematical theory and the functioning of biological neural networks. We were worried that many journals would prefer a simpler "story", but estimated that eLife might be one that simultaneously enjoys an excellent reputation and where our results might be appreciated. [...] I was disappointed by the first assessment, because we omitted more detailed analyses to make the paper more focused. [...] the thorough reviews asked us to dig deeper, which we gladly did. I followed every comment of each reviewer with great attention, significantly reshaping the paper and making it more solid."

Indeed, at eLife we want the full enchilada. As it should be.

#neuroscience #eLife #eLifeAssessment

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

eLife is looking for an Early-Career Researcher Non-executive Director.

Deadline: TODAY, December 17th

"Joining the current members of the Board, the director will help determine eLife’s strategic priorities. We’re looking for a practicing early-career research scientist (postdoc or 0–5 years of running an independent research group) with proven leadership in open science and a strong desire to change the current system."

https://elifesciences.org/jobs/4ae0d5ee/non-executive-director-early-career-scientific

#ScientificPublishing #eLife

New article type just landed at eLife: “Replication Studies”

https://elife-rp.msubmit.net/html/elife-rp_author_instructions.html#types

#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

@albertcardona @jonny @pluralistic

It is also worth noting that it is completely legal to preprint all versions up to the final accepted version (but not the proofread / edited version*). So if you preprint everything you submit, there is no reason ever to pay "open access" APC charges.
* To my knowledge, no journal has fought an author on making that final version available on your lab website.

And, of course, there are now "prestige" journals (like #eLife) that are post-preprint review. (eLife is proof that the prestige problem [and the related inequity-driving cost-to-publish problem*] and the closed-access problem are different issues.)
* eLife costs $3000 to publish a paper.

BTW: Does APC stand for "author pays corporations"? 🫤

#AcademicPublishing

Nice to see that the #eLife model of 'Publish, Review, Curate' is catching on

https://mas.to/@ASAPbio/115388786984132931

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

✍️ 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

✍️ 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

✍️ 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

✍️ 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

Publishing with eLife: “authors have a lot of control in the publication process”

"Meike van der Heijden, assistant professor at the Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at Virginia Tech Carilion and School of Neuroscience at Virginia Tech, about her latest research and why she chose to publish in the eLife Model"

https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/0eb2973e/publishing-with-elife-authors-have-a-lot-of-control-in-the-publication-process

#neuroscience #eLife #ScientificPublishing

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

Web of Science can't handle innovation 🤷‍♂️ https://rossmounce.co.uk/2024/11/18/web-of-science-cant-handle-innovation/

#eLife #Clarivate #PRCmodel #Journalology

Web of Science can't handle innovation 🤷‍♂️ https://rossmounce.co.uk/2024/11/18/web-of-science-cant-handle-innovation/

#eLife #Clarivate #PRCmodel #Journalology

Web of Science can't handle innovation 🤷‍♂️ https://rossmounce.co.uk/2024/11/18/web-of-science-cant-handle-innovation/

#eLife #Clarivate #PRCmodel #Journalology

Web of Science can't handle innovation 🤷‍♂️ https://rossmounce.co.uk/2024/11/18/web-of-science-cant-handle-innovation/

#eLife #Clarivate #PRCmodel #Journalology

Web of Science can't handle innovation 🤷‍♂️ https://rossmounce.co.uk/2024/11/18/web-of-science-cant-handle-innovation/

#eLife #Clarivate #PRCmodel #Journalology

This is how I feel about Web of Science vs. eLife fwiw

It's much bigger than just eLife. Clarivate isn't moving with the times.

Many of the best venues you can publish your research in are now _outside_ of Clarivate's "Master Journal List" 🤷‍♂️

eLife transitioning into life beyond Clarivate is part of a much wider trend.

#OpenAccess #AcademicPublishing #eLife #Clarivate #WebOfScience

funny to see this over at Clarivate.

Does deleting eLife from the "Master Journal List" really require them to take down the whole thing whilst they do it?

[edit: it's back-up now]

https://mjl.clarivate.com/

#eLife #Clarivate #WebOfScience

I think Clarivate puts more faith in peer review than they maybe should. If I read two papers, one published with all the peer reviews public for me to consider versus another paper where the peer review is private but the paper has "passed" the journal's peer review process (whatever that is), I'm no more likely to trust the paper that "passed".

Open-access journal #eLife will lose its ‘impact factor’ over controversial publishing model: https://www.science.org/content/article/web-science-index-plans-end-elife-s-journal-impact-factor

#Academia #PeerReview

I am consistently blown away at the breadth and depth of expertise that transpires from eLife reviews, and from the many comments in the internal discussion forums that authors don't get to see. For scientists by scientists – it works.

Yes, sometimes it takes time: it's scientists, we are all overcommitted. Yes, sometimes a manuscript isn't sent out for review, because we didn't understand it, or because we deem ourselves not expert in the field and not capable of doing it justice. But overall, it's amazing.

#ScientificPublishing #eLife #PeerReview

We should all try to give post-publication or post-rejection feedback there, I think it's really useful! Journals keep judging us, it's our turn to judge them ✊

Example for some journals:
#JournalOfNeuroscience : https://scirev.org/reviews/journal-of-neuroscience/

#eLife: https://scirev.org/reviews/elife/

#PLoSBiology: https://scirev.org/reviews/plos-biology/

#PLoSCompBiol : https://scirev.org/reviews/plos-computational-biology/

#Science : https://scirev.org/reviews/science/

We should all try to give post-publication or post-rejection feedback there, I think it's really useful! Journals keep judging us, it's our turn to judge them ✊

Example for some journals:
#JournalOfNeuroscience : https://scirev.org/reviews/journal-of-neuroscience/

#eLife: https://scirev.org/reviews/elife/

#PLoSBiology: https://scirev.org/reviews/plos-biology/

#PLoSCompBiol : https://scirev.org/reviews/plos-computational-biology/

#Science : https://scirev.org/reviews/science/

We should all try to give post-publication or post-rejection feedback there, I think it's really useful! Journals keep judging us, it's our turn to judge them ✊

Example for some journals:
#JournalOfNeuroscience : https://scirev.org/reviews/journal-of-neuroscience/

#eLife: https://scirev.org/reviews/elife/

#PLoSBiology: https://scirev.org/reviews/plos-biology/

#PLoSCompBiol : https://scirev.org/reviews/plos-computational-biology/

#Science : https://scirev.org/reviews/science/

We should all try to give post-publication or post-rejection feedback there, I think it's really useful! Journals keep judging us, it's our turn to judge them ✊

Example for some journals:
#JournalOfNeuroscience : https://scirev.org/reviews/journal-of-neuroscience/

#eLife: https://scirev.org/reviews/elife/

#PLoSBiology: https://scirev.org/reviews/plos-biology/

#PLoSCompBiol : https://scirev.org/reviews/plos-computational-biology/

#Science : https://scirev.org/reviews/science/

We should all try to give post-publication or post-rejection feedback there, I think it's really useful! Journals keep judging us, it's our turn to judge them ✊

Example for some journals:
#JournalOfNeuroscience : https://scirev.org/reviews/journal-of-neuroscience/

#eLife: https://scirev.org/reviews/elife/

#PLoSBiology: https://scirev.org/reviews/plos-biology/

#PLoSCompBiol : https://scirev.org/reviews/plos-computational-biology/

#Science : https://scirev.org/reviews/science/

Having its impact factor "taken away" seems like a triumph for #elife as far as I am concerned. I think more journals should aspire to the same.
https://www.science.org/content/article/web-science-index-plans-end-elife-s-journal-impact-factor

#eLife publication question:
Since eLife is more like a preprint server now, has anyone tried publishing in eLife, and once you got your reviews and revised the manuscript, sending the final version to a 'normal' journal (really just to get that line on your CV)?

If you tried, did it work?

Edit: just found out I asked the same question about a year ago:
https://neuromatch.social/@elduvelle/111524948037664374

Edit 2: seems that at the time of my first post, eLife was leaving open the possibility to do the final publication in another journal, it was one of the steps of their system. Now it's not listed in the main steps anymore, but they say:

"Can I submit my paper somewhere else following peer review by eLife?
As far as eLife is concerned, authors can do anything with their paper that they want to. It is their paper, not ours. This includes, but is not limited to, having their work assessed by another journal on the basis of eLife reviews, although we expect most authors will not find this necessary or desirable. Please note that an eLife Version of Record is considered a regular journal article, which marks the end of the publishing process."

(I also edited my question because it doesn't seem you can "re-publish" your version of record)

#Publication #Academia #Preprint #Journals

Emperor Clarivatus has decided that Elias eLife must be banished from the kingdom of the Master Journal List.

Elias eLife’s crime? Helping science to be done better, with more efficiency and less waste. 🤷‍♂️

Emperor Clarivatus is no stranger to whimsical decision-making (1/2)

#elife #Clarivate

When eLife switched to reviewing preprints I wasn’t enamoured with the “assessments” they place next to the abstract. Summarising the judgment of editor and reviewers they seemed formulaic and overly reliant on ambiguous terms (is it a landmark or just sparkling usefulness?).
Now I realised that’s because I read papers I could judge myself as I understood the methods. The eLife assessments actually seem a useful crutch for papers completely out of my field.

#eLife #PeerReview #PreprintReview

When eLife switched to reviewing preprints I wasn’t enamoured with the “assessments” they place next to the abstract. Summarising the judgment of editor and reviewers they seemed formulaic and overly reliant on ambiguous terms (is it a landmark or just sparkling usefulness?).
Now I realised that’s because I read papers I could judge myself as I understood the methods. The eLife assessments actually seem a useful crutch for papers completely out of my field.

#eLife #PeerReview #PreprintReview

When eLife switched to reviewing preprints I wasn’t enamoured with the “assessments” they place next to the abstract. Summarising the judgment of editor and reviewers they seemed formulaic and overly reliant on ambiguous terms (is it a landmark or just sparkling usefulness?).
Now I realised that’s because I read papers I could judge myself as I understood the methods. The eLife assessments actually seem a useful crutch for papers completely out of my field.

#eLife #PeerReview #PreprintReview

When eLife switched to reviewing preprints I wasn’t enamoured with the “assessments” they place next to the abstract. Summarising the judgment of editor and reviewers they seemed formulaic and overly reliant on ambiguous terms (is it a landmark or just sparkling usefulness?).
Now I realised that’s because I read papers I could judge myself as I understood the methods. The eLife assessments actually seem a useful crutch for papers completely out of my field.

#eLife #PeerReview #PreprintReview

When eLife switched to reviewing preprints I wasn’t enamoured with the “assessments” they place next to the abstract. Summarising the judgment of editor and reviewers they seemed formulaic and overly reliant on ambiguous terms (is it a landmark or just sparkling usefulness?).
Now I realised that’s because I read papers I could judge myself as I understood the methods. The eLife assessments actually seem a useful crutch for papers completely out of my field.

#eLife #PeerReview #PreprintReview

Is it just me or is it impossible to unsubscribe from @eLife marketing / “Update for authors” emails? I have tried several times now and the unsubscribe link never works.

I don’t want to set them as spam because some eLife emails might be about reviewing etc. (or my future paper that I’ll submit there). But I can’t find a working way to unsubscribe anywhere.

Anyway I emailed them about it (again) so hopefully it will work this time.. 🤞

#eLife

@neuralreckoning @WorldImagining @mschottdorf @brembs

The true thing is peer review, that is, non-conflicted experts assessing the validity of the work.

Peer review can be improved. We (you, me, and many others) have spent years discussing various ways to implement it.

The journal was invented in 1665, where scientific editors judged quality ("peer" review of the work) or societies judged entry (review of the individual, but not the science itself). Assessment cycles in which experts provide advice to those editors and authors respond was invented in the 1950s. Frontiers developed an endorsement model that reduced gate-keeping and editor power in 2007. eLife started using its preprint commentary model in 2022 that enhanced editorial power, but was post-preprint peer review. We're still working on the best solution.

But... the most important thing is peer review is not some random comments from someone (often in conflict of interest) who has something to say about the paper. It is an assessment by an expert that takes time and effort and is done for others, not for oneself. It is a very powerful tool to improve scientific progress.

At this point, my opinion is the following (but I am still observing the scientific sociology to see how things work):

- Within field, preprints work fine.

- The binary published/not of "peer reviewed" journals did not work as well as we hoped.

- For scientists outside of a field, the new #eLife system of commentary works well. It provides detailed commentary that one can use to judge a paper's quality.

- For non-scientists (journalists, policy-makers, judges (!), etc), we need some sort of binary gate-keeping system. It would be good if we had a better one than the current glamourized journal system.

PS. I have previously said that peer reviews used for editorial gate-keeping shouldn't be published. That is because those peer reviews are "advice to the editor" to make the binary journal yes/no decision. They serve a different role than the eLife public assessment. I would be fine if these "reviews are published" assessments included three separate components:

(1) a private message to editor and authors that is designed to make the paper better [not published],

(2) a private message to the editor and authors about whether the paper should enter the literature as is (or at all) and if fixes could make it suitable to enter the literature [not published],

(3) a public assessment of the quality of the work [this is published]

@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

@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

@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

@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

@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