Editorial policies

Publication criteria

Open Research Europe (ORE) is an open access publishing platform that makes it easy for eligible authors to comply with the open access terms of their funding. ORE offers researchers a publishing venue to share their results and insights rapidly and facilitate open, constructive research discussion.

At least one author must meet at least one of the following criteria:

  • Authors affiliated to a research organisation (e.g., university, research centre, research department in an university hospital, research department in an industrial enterprise) or funded by a research funding organisation in a country that is represented in the Funders’ Group by a 'Country-level' Member.
  • Authors affiliated to or funded by an 'Institutional Member'
  • Authors involved in current or past projects or grants funded by the European Union or co-funded by the European Union, such as ERA-NET Cofund, MSCA COFUND, COST actions and other co-funded programmes, may publish in ORE the outputs of their research funded by these funding programmes (see full list of eligible funding programmes).
  • Authors who are employed by the European Commission or by one of the European Union’s agencies may publish on ORE scientific publications directly resulting from their employment duties.

Eligible authors must have an active and verifiable institutional email account.

The article must be original work (see section 'Originality and prior publication').

Publication costs

There are no fees for publication in Open Research Europe. All publication costs are covered by the ORE Funders Group.

Platform scope

Open Research Europe publishes articles in all subject areas across the Natural Sciences, Engineering and Technology, Medical Sciences, Agricultural and Veterinary Sciences, Social Sciences and Humanities.

Publication in Open Research Europe denotes that all its authors have agreed to its content and have ensured that Open Research Europe policies have been fully adhered to. Non-compliance with these policies may mean that an article fails the pre-publication checks and cannot be published.

Originality and prior publication

All articles submitted to Open Research Europe must be original; the work, or large parts of it, must not have been published previously or be currently under consideration for publication or peer review elsewhere. If there is any significant overlap with another article, this must be cited in the article and mentioned during submission.

All articles are screened for plagiarism on submission. If clear plagiarism (including self-plagiarism; substantial reuse of the authors' own previously published text without disclosure) is identified, the article will be rejected.

Authors who wish to reproduce figures, tables, or extended quotations from a previous copyrighted publication are responsible for obtaining the permission of copyright holder(s) and for referencing the original source and authors clearly. Content that was previously published under a creative commons license may be reused under the condition of the specific license that applies to that content.

Preprints

Open Research Europe supports the dissemination of research through preprint servers and does not regard prior posting of a preprint as prior publication. Authors are encouraged to deposit preprints on recognised servers (e.g., ArXiv, SSRN, bioRxiv or MedRxiv) or institutional repositories before or after submission to Open Research Europe. Authors must disclose the existence of any preprint version at submission, providing the preprint server name, persistent identifier, and version number.

Citations

Research and non-research articles must cite relevant, timely, and verified literature where appropriate to support any claims made in the article. Authors are responsible for assuring that all literature is cited properly and appropriately.

Authors should make sure that the references cited are relevant and provide a fair and balanced overview of the current state of research on the topic. The selected references should not be unfairly biased towards a particular research group, organisation or journal.

Authors must avoid excessive and inappropriate self-citation or the inappropriate citation of other’s work, as this can be considered a form of misconduct called citation manipulation. Self-citation is appropriate where it provides essential context; it is not appropriate as a means of inflating citation counts or directing readers to unrelated prior work.

Similarly, peer reviewers should not ask authors to add citations to their papers when there is no strong rationale for doing so, and authors should only add referee citation suggestions if they agree with them. Open Research Europe follows the relevant COPE guidance for handling cases of suspected citation malpractice.

Authorship and contributorship

All listed authors must have made a clear contribution to the submitted work. As a guide, authors should refer to the criteria for authorship that have been developed by The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), which require that each author meets all four of the following conditions:

  • Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; AND
  • Drafting the work or reviewing it critically for important intellectual content; AND
  • Final approval of the version to be published; AND
  • Agreement to be accountable for all aspects of the work in ensuring that questions related to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work are appropriately investigated and resolved.

Large collaborations: ORE recognises authorship agreements for large collaborations, provided that authorship is determined through a transparent process.

Furthermore, each author’s contribution should be detailed by selecting CRediT roles on the article submission form.

Types of authors

During submission, authors can designate specific authorship labels to each contributor. These are:

Corresponding author
The person to whom all correspondence throughout the manuscript publication process and subsequent lifetime should be addressed. This person is responsible for making sure that all information provided during the submission process is correct for all authors. This person is responsible for acting on editorial queries throughout the submission and publication processes.

All corresponding authors must hold a current, verifiable affiliation with a recognised research institution, university, government body, or equivalent academic or scientific organisation.

Co-author
This can be any person who has made a significant contribution to a manuscript. They take responsibility for the accuracy and integrity of the content of the published work alongside all other authors and have equal standing when it comes to approving the article for publication, or any changes to future versions before resubmission.

Further contributors

Anyone who has contributed but does not meet the criteria for authorship (for example, purely technical or writing assistance, e.g., scientific/medical writers, translators) should be listed in the ‘Acknowledgments’ section of the article text. The involvement of any professional scientific or medical writer assistance must be declared. Authors should obtain permission to include the name and affiliation, from all those mentioned in the Acknowledgments section. For more resources on defining authorship policies see the relevant COPE guidelines.

Artificial intelligence and authorship
As listed authors must be able to take responsibility for the validity and integrity of the contents of an article, AI-based writing tools (e.g., large language models [LLMs], generative AI, chatbots) and technologies do not meet the criteria for authorship. All authors are wholly responsible for the originality, validity, and integrity of the content of their submissions. Please see the policy section on Artifical Intelligence for further information.

Author ORCID accounts

Submitting author(s) and co-authors are invited to provide an ORCID upon submission. Doing so automatically updates their ORCID publication record following publication. Upon adding any additional authors to a manuscript, individuals can be asked to connect and verify their ORCID accounts similarly for the same result. All authors with validated ORCID accounts on published manuscripts are marked in the published versions of articles.

Changes in authorship

Changes to the author list following its submission or publication requires the written confirmation of all authors listed at the time of the change request. The corresponding author must provide a valid explanation outlining the reasons for the request. All changes will be assessed in line with the COPE guidelines. Should a change to the author line be necessary, a new version of the article can be published with an explanation included in the ‘Amendments’ section at the top of the new version. Any changes in authorship must be confirmed by all authors. If the editorial team is unable to contact an author, the corresponding author is responsible for facilitating communication. The editorial team cannot take responsibility for resolving any disputes over authorship; any disagreements amongst the authors must be settled by the authors’ institution(s).

Changes to author names

Open Research Europe understands that authors, reviewers or commenters may wish to change their names for many reasons, including gender identity recognition, marriage, divorce, and other personal reasons. To avoid any distress this process may cause, ORE is keen to work with researchers to enable them to provide identification on their own terms. Legal or official proof of a name change is not required.

If an author, reviewer or commenter requires a name change, they are invited to contact the editorial team. They are also to advise if the name change should be enacted on a particular date to give researchers time to communicate with co-authors if desired. To protect the identify and personal data of the researcher requesting the name change, all correspondence will be treated in confidence, only team members that are required to implement the name change will be made aware, and the information will not be used for any use apart from name change implementation.

For articles, any change of name will not require a new version of the article to be created; all existing versions will be edited to reflect the change and the DOI will remain the same. A Notice of Change will not be posted to articles for author name changes.

If an article is indexed, ORE will exert all efforts to ensure that the change is propagated to indexer websites. However, please note that ORE cannot control the use or appearance on third party websites.

Please note that ORE considers it a violation of publishing and personal ethics to request to change the name of another individual without their explicit consent. 

Competing interests

Competing interests refer to circumstances that could sway a person's decision-making. These circumstances have the potential to impact, or be perceived as impacting, every phase of the research process, from initial planning and funding allocation to carrying out a study, analyzing results, and disseminating findings.

Authors must include a ‘Competing interests’ statement in their article. A competing interest will not preclude publication, but it provides full transparency for the reviewers and readers. If there are no competing interests to declare, the following standard statement is added: ‘No competing interests were disclosed’.

A competing interest may be of non-financial or financial nature. Examples of competing interests include (but are not limited to):

  • individuals receiving funding, salary or other forms of payment from an organisation, or holding stocks or shares from a company, that might benefit (or lose) financially from the publication of the findings;
  • individuals or their funding organisation or employer holding (or applying for) related patents;
  • official affiliations and memberships with interest groups relating to the content of the publication;
  • political, religious, or ideological competing interests.
  • personal relationships (including close friendships, supervisory relationships, or family relationships) with other parties involved in the work.

Authors from pharmaceutical companies, or other commercial organisations that sponsor clinical or field trials or other research studies, should declare these as competing interests on submission. The relationship of each author to such an organisation should be explained in the ‘Competing interests’ section. Publications in Open Research Europe must not contain content advertising any commercial products.

Reviewers are also required to declare any competing interests in their reviews, as are readers who contribute comments on the site.

Research funding

Authors submitting articles for publication in Open Research Europe are required to declare all sources of financial support that were used in direct relation to the preparation of their article.

Examples of these funding sources include:

  • Internal financial support e.g., grants or funds provided by author institutions, employers, or direct author-affiliated organisations.
  • External financial support e.g., funds obtained from non- or for-profits, private foundations, think tanks, political advocacy groups, trade or research associations, and government bodies.

When providing these details, please consider implicit, explicit, or perceived competing interests and provide further details in the competing interest declaration of your article as appropriate. For example, if a funder also provided support such as data acquisition, this should be stated as a competing interest in the article.

Examples of funding support authors should declare include (but are not limited to):

  • Funding used in direct relation to research output (e.g., to buy equipment or reagents) and/or analysis of the results.
  • Funding used for outsourced or external services related to experiments or data analysis reported in the article.
  • Additional funding used to pay for language editing services, translators, and scientific, medical or technical writers.
  • Funding for travel necessary to the research project (e.g., travel to do fieldwork or archival research).

If no funding was obtained for the reported work, authors are also required to declare that no funding was obtained. This ensures transparency and avoids concerns being raised about undeclared funding support.

Any funding declaration must include the full name(s) of the funding body, the grant number(s), and ideally, the name of the person/group to whom this grant was awarded.

Research ethics policies

Open Research Europe adheres to the COPE guidelines relating to ethical oversight.

All research published in Open Research Europe must have been conducted according to the requirements of your funding provider/ university/institute or relevant ethics committees. For research funded under Horizon Europe, see requirements of ethics and integrity in Article 14 of the Model Grant Agreement; for all EU-funded research, see guidelines on fulfilling these requirements in EU Grants: How to complete your ethics self-assessment and EU Grants: AGA - Annotated Grant Agreement. 

  • Involvement of patients, children or vulnerable populations;
  • Involvement of humans and/or human cells or tissues;
  • Implication of developing countries;
  • Collecting and processing of personal data;
  • Use of animals;
  • Risk of environmental impact, health and safety;
  • Artificial intelligence.

Submitted articles must respect European and national laws, including the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and have obtained relevant institutional and/or national ethics approval, as well as any additional ethical approval from Horizon Europe, where relevant, which will be requested at submission.

Not following these requirements will result in rejection of article submissions.

Research hazard and safety disclosure

Authors that report or discuss equipment or materials therein that involve or have related unusual or specifically dangerous associated hazards are expected to identify and report these explicitly in the article. Where appropriate, precautionary measures should also be discussed at a relevant point in the article text or provided as supporting information. Examples of such could include (but are not limited to) the use of highly toxic or potentially explosive chemicals, or predicted hazards associated with synthesised materials or compounds.

Dual-use research

Dual-use research of concern refers to scientific research that, while intended for beneficial purposes, could also be misapplied for harmful outcomes. This concept is primarily associated with life sciences but is relevant across various fields, including engineering and computer sciences. Dual-use research of concern encompasses information and products that may negatively impact health, safety, agriculture, the environment, or public, national, or international security.

Examples of such work can involve:

  • research on human, animal or agricultural pathogens;
  • synthetic biology;
  • artificial intelligence;
  • pharmaceutical aerosol delivery systems;
  • nuclear research.

For articles submitted to Open Research Europe that cover research topics that could be of concern for dual use, the threats or issues must be clearly added to the manuscript text before submission.

Open Research Europe reserves the right to refer such submissions to independent expert review and to decline publication where risks to public safety are judged to outweigh scientific benefit.

Research on military and defence

Articles on military and defence matters are not eligible for publication in ORE. This provision does not apply to dual-use applications.

Research ethics involving human, animal and plant subjects

Research and investigations conducting on high-order, vertebrate or regulated invertebrate animals must be conducted in an ethically responsible manner and must comply with any applicable guidelines and regulations. Authors conducting such research should consult the Equator Network for many common reporting guidelines for health-related research topics.

Research involving humans

All studies involving any humans or human biospecimens (individuals, human data or material) must have been conducted according to the principles in the Declaration of Helsinki. Human biospecimens are defined as tissue samples from human subjects or derivatives of tissues, e.g., blood, hair, human cell lines, saliva, sweat, or urine.

Particularly, for research involving human stem cells and/or human embryos, authors must obtain the approval of the relevant national or local ethics committee prior to the start of the relevant activities. All national rules and procedures must be respected, including on such issues as parental consent, absence of financial inducement, etc. For further details, also relating to EU-funded research on the topic, please see the Statement by the Commission on ethics/stem cell research – Art. 19.

For all studies involving human participants, including personal genomics studies, case reports, clinical trials, questionnaires, observations etc, informed written consent to take part in the research must have been obtained prior to the commencement of the study. For patients or study participants who are not adults or are considered to be vulnerable or unable to provide informed consent, this must then be obtained from their legal guardians, or next of kin if the participant is deceased. Please note that consent to publish cannot be exempted by an ethics committee. Signed consent forms must be made available to the editorial team if requested.

Furthermore, for any article that includes identifiable information or data, authors are required to collect and provide consent to publish from all individuals involved. A statement about this consent must be included in the manuscript.

Sex and gender equity in research

Open Research Europe endorses the SAGER guidelines for reporting sex and gender information in study design, data analyses and results. Authors are encouraged to consult the guidelines before performing their research and when writing their article. An author checklist for ORE based on SAGER guidelines can be downloaded here.

Research ethics involving animals

All research involving animals must be compliant with the ARRIVE guidelines and any further applicable national or international guidelines. Ethical approval must have been obtained for all protocols from the relevant institutional, local, national, or other relevant ethics committee (Institutional Review Board, IRB) prior to starting the study. Retrospective approval can usually not be obtained and it may not be possible to publish the study. Authors must be prepared to provide further information to the editorial team upon request. Details of this approval must be included within the manuscript, including the name of the ethics committee, reference/permit number(s) and the date approval was granted. If the relevant authority does not provide such accreditation numbers, this must be mentioned in this statement. If a study has been granted an exemption from requiring ethical approval, this should be stated along with the name of the ethics committee that provided the exemption, along with the reasons for the exemption. If animals were used but ethical approval was not required, a clear statement should be included stating why this approval was unnecessary.

Research involving plants

Studies on plants (cultivated or wild), including the collection of plant material, must be carried out within the guidelines provided by the authors’ institution(s) and national or international regulations. Field studies should comply with local legislation and, where applicable, a statement of permissions granted and/or licenses obtained should be included in the article.

In short: Details authors must include in their manuscript for manuscripts including human, animal, or plant material:

  • Details of the approval must be included within the manuscript, including the name of the ethics committee, reference/permit number(s) and the date approval was granted.
  • Any details of ethical approval exemption where necessary, including the exempting ethics committee name.
  • The provenance, species, strain, sex, age, and housing of animals
  • Full details of anesthesia, analgesia, and euthanasia protocols where applicable
  • Where necessary, a statement regarding the public disclosure of personal or private information or data that could be used to identify an individual and the explicit consent of the individual to publish that information
  • For research on plants, a statement on permissions granted for the study (and by whom)

Research involving protected heritage sites

Researchers working on protected heritage sites must comply with all necessary ethical guidelines (including process of data collection, deposition and handling specimens) and obtain all necessary permits from relevant authorities for access to sites and/or specimens prior to conducting the work.

Registration of trials and systematic reviews

Trial registration

Open Research Europe uses the WHO definition of a clinical trial to decide what constitutes a clinical trial:

“A clinical trial is any research study that prospectively assigns human participants or groups of humans to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate the effects on health outcomes. Interventions include (but are not restricted to) drugs, cells and other biological products, surgical procedures, radiologic procedures, devices, behavioural treatments, process-of-care changes, preventive care, etc.”

Trials should be registered prospectively, and the trial registration number and registration date must be included in the article. Further information can be found at the ICMJE FAQ on trial registration and the WHO provides a list of approved registries.

Although trials should be registered before patient recruitment starts, several initiatives (such as the AllTrials campaign) have recognised that retrospective trial registration will encourage publication of both positive and negative results, and trials that were conducted before registration was possible. In line with these initiatives, Open Research Europe will consider retrospectively registered trials, provided an explanation for the late registration is provided in the article. Again, the trial registration number and date of registration must be included in the Methods section of the article.

Systematic reviews registration

Authors are encouraged to register their systematic reviews in PROSPERO or another registry for systematic reviews. The registration number should be included in the article.

Preregistration

Open Research Europe encourages authors to preregister their studies and analysis plans, if applicable, in an independent, institutional registry. Examples of registries include PROSPERO (for registration of systematic reviews); and OSF Registries (for general registration). The registration number and link to the registry should be included in the article.

Responsible use of artificial intelligence (AI)

The use of artificial intelligence (AI) or AI-supported tools has become prevalent in modern research practices. Open Research Europe believes in the responsible use of AI in research and publishing and thus has established a policy to increase the transparency of AI use to our readers.

Human accountability

While AI may be used throughout many stages of research and the publishing lifecycle, all content analyzed or generated by an AI must be verified independently by a human. The final content of an article lies solely with the listed authors, and they agree upon submission to take full accountability for the manuscript. Authors must ensure that the use of any AI or AI-supported tool upholds relevant ethical standards for their work.

Authorship

Aligning to the guidelines provided by ICMJE on authorship, Open Research Europe does not allow AI tools to be listed as manuscript authors.

Similarly, authors should not cite AI tools in their reference section.

Transparency and disclosure

Open Research Europe believes in full transparency for the use of AI tools throughout the submission and publication process and request authors to clearly disclose the use of AI tools.

Authors must:

  • Independently verify all AI-generated or AI-assisted content
  • Ensure originality and proper citation, including checking all references to ensure citations are real, accurate, and properly cited
  • Ensure compliance with copyright and licensing, obtaining permissions where necessary and ensuring no AI-generated plagiarised content has been included in their work
  • Disclose AI use transparently in their manuscript (see below for details)

Images and figures

For any image in a manuscript that has (in part or full) been generated, modified, manipulated or enhanced using AI tools, in addition to the details provided in the Artificial Intelligence Use Declaration, the image caption should also mention any relevant details about this.

Explicit restrictions:

Raw experimental data images (e.g., microscopy, gels) must be authentic and non-AI-generated.

Images that include AI-generated depictions of humans are explicitly not allowed for publication.

Examples of acceptable and unacceptable uses of AI and AI-supported tools

The following examples provide high-level guidance for uses of AI or AI-supported tools but are not exhaustive and, in all cases listed below, individuals should assess the tools and their use themselves before applying them to their articles. Authors must verify, validate, and take responsibility for the content generated by AI tools and the content labelled appropriately.

Acceptable uses:

  • Grammar checking, spell checking or text editing
  • Translation assistance
  • Article formatting or structuring
  • Data analysis support (with full validation)

Prohibited uses:

  • Using AI tools to fabricate, falsify, or misrepresent data, results, citations, or any other research output
  • Using AI to generate images, micrographs, gel images, histology slides, or any scientific image that is presented as representing real experimental or observational data
  • Listing AI as an author
  • Generating or altering research data without clear reasons, methodology and disclosure
  • Generating fake references. All cited works must exist and be verified by the authors
  • Producing large manuscript sections, or entire manuscripts, without substantial human contribution
  • Using AI to assess manuscripts during the peer review process

Disclosure of AI use

Any use of AI tools in the preparation of a manuscript must be disclosed in the manuscript as a separate section and where appropriate, also marked clearly in other relevant positions in the text to make the use clear to readers. The disclosure section must specify the following and an example statement is given below:

  • The name of the AI tool or system used.
  • The version or model (where known or accessible).
  • The specific purpose for which it was used.
  • A statement that the authors take full responsibility for the accuracy, originality, and integrity of all content.

Artificial Intelligence Use Disclosure
During the preparation of this article, the author(s) used the following AI, or AI-supported, tools:

Tool 1 [incl. Name; Version, Month/Year]: Purpose and reasoning [how and why] 1.

Tool 2 [incl. Name; Version, Month/Year]: Purpose and reasoning [how and why] 2.

The author(s) reviewed and validated the output of these tools and take full responsibility for the content presented in this article.

Image integrity

Images published in Open Research Europe should accurately reflect the original image and must accurately represent the underlying data or observations. As such, all images, whether submitted as figures or uploaded as data, must not be manipulated so that readers are not misled about what the images indicate. While it may be standard practice to use software to modify images to make them clearer and easier to interpret in some cases, any modifications that are made to images should be minor, must be made uniformly to the whole image, and details transparently communicated to readers.

Modifications that alter the scientific meaning of the image, whether conducted on specific regions or the whole image, are not permitted, unless such modifications are a necessary and fundamental part of an interpretation presented in the publication in which case they should be duly explained and justified.

The following modifications to images are expressly prohibited:

  • Splicing images from different sources, conditions, gels, fields, or time points without explicit disclosure and clear labelling
  • Selectively enhancing, suppressing, or obscuring specific features within an image
  • Adding, duplicating, or removing elements within an image
  • Altering the scale, orientation, or any element in a way that changes its scientific meaning
  • Using AI image-generation tools to produce, fabricate, or modify images presented as representing real experimental or observational data. Such images are considered fabricated data and will be treated as research misconduct.

Authors are required to include details of all modifications made to images published as figures or uploaded as data in the Methods section of an article, including the name of the software (with version number) used to make these modifications.

Raw image files

Open Research Europe requires the original, uncropped, unannotated and unprocessed versions of all scientific images (i.e. the underlying data) to be deposited to an approved online repository (see our Data Guidelines for further details on depositing your data).

The Editorial Team will conduct checks of all figures and data using forensic image analysis software. In line with COPE guidelines, where images suspected of improper manipulation are detected, clarification with the authors will be sought. Where the reasons for these suspected manipulations are not explained satisfactorily, the article is likely to be rejected and the authors’ institution may be contacted.

Reproducibility

Open Research Europe is committed to serving the research community by ensuring that all articles include enough information to allow others to reproduce the work. To ensure a minimum level of reproducibility for methods,  authors are required to ensure that adequate information about the techniques used in their research are provided. Authors should avoid the use of citation shortcuts, such as “[technique] was performed according to the methods of [reference]” without giving complete details of the methods used, including reagents used, time frames, etc., and any allowances for controlling bias and unwanted sources of variability.

Where applicable, authors should deposit step-by-step descriptions of their protocols on protocols.io and to include the persistent DOI in the Methods section of the manuscript.

Authors should follow standards of reporting guidelines for their research field, and make sure that a comprehensive description of their research is provided, making it easier for others to assess and reproduce the work. Authors must review the reporting standards available through the Equator Network for their research application, applying any that are relevant. At submission, authors are required to confirm that they have reviewed these standards, indicate whether any were applicable to their work, and verify that the manuscript adheres to them. Adherence to reporting guidelines, if appropriate, will be assessed by the editorial team. For more detail and a comprehensive overview, see the FAIRSharing initiative.

Authors are encouraged to add Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) to their article unambiguously identify the following types of resources: antibodies, genetically modified organisms, software tools, data, databases and services.

Data availability

Open Research Europe requires open access to research data supporting articles under the principle ‘as open as possible, as closed as necessary’.

Open Research Europe authors that submit original publications should deposit the research data underlying the publication in a trusted repository and provide open access to them under a Creative Commons Attribution Public License (CC BY) or a Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication (CC0) or a license with equivalent rights, unless an exception applies. A Creative Commons Public Domain Mark (PDM) or equivalent should be applied to raw research data unless the data meet the requirements to be protected by copyright/database rights. Failure to provide the research data underlying the publication without appropriate justification will result in the article being rejected. Additional materials that support the key claims but are not absolutely required to follow the study design and analysis of the results, e.g., questionnaires or supplementary figures, should also be uploaded to a stable and recognised open repository as extended data.

Authors should also provide via the repository any information needed to replicate, validate, and/or reuse the results/your study and analysis of the data. This includes details of any software, instruments and other tools used to process the results. Where possible, the tools and instruments themselves should also be provided. A Data Availability Statement is required with every submission.

For detailed information about the type of research data authors need to include when publishing an article on Open Research Europe, where the data can be stored, and how they should be presented, see our Data Guidelines.

Openly sharing data may not always be feasible. Exceptions to open access to research data underlying publications on Open Research Europe are permitted in alignment to relevant policy. These exceptions concern:

  • legitimate interest including commercial exploitation;
  • other constraints such as privacy, confidentiality, Union competitive interests, security rules, or those related to intellectual property rights including patents and trade secrets;
  • the obligation to protect personal data (submission to Open Research Europe must respect the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and national law on data protection (including authorizations or notification requirements);
  • if opening up research data is against other obligations of the Grant Agreement with the European Commission of the project which the article resulted from.

For details on how to provide information on any data sharing exceptions in your article’s data availability statement please see our Data Guidelines.

All qualitative and quantitative data to be shared in English, unless there are reasonable explanations as to why this would not be possible. 

Reporting guideline checklist

Reporting guidelines checklists should be provided for the following study types and uploaded to a stable and recognised open repository: clinical trials (CONSORT); clinical trial protocols (SPIRIT); systematic reviews (PRISMA); systematic review protocols (PRISMA-P); and in vivo experiments (ARRIVE). Guideline checklists can be found on the Equator Network website. If submitting a reporting guideline checklist, please select “Yes: some or all of my data have been shared” in the form and then select “Extended” under “Select type of data”.

Ethical and security considerations

If data access is restricted for ethical or security reasons, the manuscript must include:

  • a description of the restrictions on the data;
  • what, if anything, the relevant Institutional Review Board (IRB) or equivalent said about the data sharing; and
  • all necessary information required for a reader or reviewer to apply for access to the data and the conditions under which access will be granted.

Data protection issues

Where human data cannot be effectively de-identified, data must not be shared in order to protect participant privacy unless the individuals have given explicit written consent that their identifiable data can be made publicly available. Examples of such identifying information include (but is not limited to) written descriptions, photographs, illustrations, recordings, videos, pedigrees, rare diseases, physical traits or disorders.

In instances where the data cannot be made available, the manuscript must include:

  • an explanation of the data protection concern;
  • any intermediary data that can be de-identified without compromising anonymity;
  • what, if anything, the relevant Institutional Review Board (IRB) or equivalent said about data sharing; and
  • where applicable, all necessary information required for a reader or peer reviewer to apply for access to the data and the conditions under which access will be granted.

Social media data

Where content has been obtained from social media sites, authors should not share this in the manuscript due to ethical and copyright restrictions. This includes e.g., images of representative posts, unless you have explicit written informed consent to publish from the author of the social media post. The manuscript should include:

  • a Methods section containing a detailed description of the methodology to allow replication by others, including sources, search dates, full search strategies/terms, eligibility criteria, and data selection processes; and
  • a description of the data in the Data Availability section, including any variables assessed; and
  • the following disclaimer in the Data Availability section: The underlying data to this research cannot be shared due to the ethical and copyright restrictions surrounding social media data. The Methods section contains detailed information to allow replication of the study. Any queries about the methodology should be directed to the corresponding author.

If you are using data from X, you are permitted to share the Tweet IDs or User IDs in a dataset. This allows others to ‘hydrate’ (get complete details of) these IDs using X’s API. Datasets containing Tweet/User IDs should be uploaded as per our data guidelines under a CC0 Public Domain Dedication, or a CC-BY 4.0 Creative Commons Attribution Only license.

Large data

It is not always feasible to share large data sets. In these cases, authors should include a description of the data, including the file types and sizes, when submitting their manuscript.

Where data is too large to be feasibly hosted by a trusted repository, the manuscript should include:

  • any intermediary data that can be easily shared; and
  • all necessary information required for a reader or reviewer to access the data alongside a description of this process.

Data under license by a third party

In cases where data has been obtained from a third party and restrictions apply to the availability of the data, the manuscript must include:

  • all necessary information required for a reader or reviewer to access the data by the same means as the authors;
  • any intermediary data that can be shared legally; and
  • publicly available data that is representative of the analyzed dataset and can be used to apply the methodology described in the manuscript.

In cases where data from human studies has been obtained from government level organisations (e.g., a Ministry of Health), and strict restrictions regarding availability of the data apply, the authors must include a clear explanation about the restrictions, and all the necessary information required for a reader or reviewer to request access from the data owners. This option will be discussed with authors on a case-by-case basis and can only be considered if there are no discernible competing interests, especially if these are commercial in nature.

Proprietary software

Where third party proprietary software has been used, an open source alternative must be provided in the article to allow for the replication of the analysis or research by all readers. Please check Alternativeto.net to identify available open source alternatives.

Exceptions may be made if the chosen proprietary software performs specific functions and there is no open source alternative that can carry out these functions in the same manner.

If this applies to your article, your manuscript should include:

  • A statement in the ‘Software Availability’ section that includes a clear description of the third-party proprietary software used, including the name and version number, and what it was used for in the research.
  • A detailed ‘Methods’ section that allows for replication; for example, the mathematics underpinning any simulations or calculations run using the proprietary software.
  • Any output data or analysis code generated during the research. This should be provided openly and in an open file format. If an open file format is not possible, this can be provided in the proprietary format. See our data guidelines for more information on uploading datasets.

Licenses

Open Research Europe provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. Articles are published under a CC BY license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and leaves the copyright of the article with the current copyright holder (usually the author or their institution).

Data associated with Open Research Europe articles are made available, where possible, under the terms of a Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication (CC0 license). This facilitates and encourages re-use and helps prevent the problems of attribution stacking when combining multiple datasets each authored by multiple authors that use multiple different licenses.

Peer reviews that are published with a given article are also available under the CC BY license.

Permanency of content

All articles published in Open Research Europe receive a DOI and are permanently published. This applies regardless of the outcome of the peer review that follows publication.

All content, including articles that have not (yet) passed peer review, is permanently archived in Portico. All articles that pass peer review will also be permanently archived in Zenodo, or, if appropriate, in a number of thematic repositories that collaborate with Open Research Europe, such as Europe PMC. Once the platform has been formally approved by major bibliographic databases, articles that have passed peer review will be archived there.

Authors can revise, change and update their articles by publishing new versions, which are added to the article’s history; however, the individual versions, once published, cannot be altered or withdrawn and are permanently available on the Open Research Europe website. Open Research Europe participates in the CrossMark scheme, a multi-publisher initiative that has developed a standard way for readers to locate the current version of an article. By applying the CrossMark policies, Open Research Europe is committed to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if they occur.

Clicking on the CrossMark logo will give you the current status of an article and direct you to the latest published version; it may also give you additional information such as new peer review reports.

In order to maintain the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record, the following policies will be applied when published content needs to be corrected; these policies take into account current best practice in the scholarly publishing and library communities.

Corrections to an article

In traditional journals, where articles are peer reviewed before publication, Corrections (or Errata) are published to alert readers to errors in the article that became apparent following the publication of the final article.

By contrast, articles in Open Research Europe undergo peer review post publication and publication is therefore not ‘final’ as new versions can be added at any stage. Possible mistakes that come to light during the peer review process may be highlighted in the published peer review reports, which are part of the article. Authors can publish revised versions, and any errors that become apparent during peer review or later can be corrected through the publication of new versions. Corrections and changes relative to the previous version are always summarised in the ‘Amendments’ section at the start of a new version.

Retraction

If an article needs to be retracted for any reason following the conclusion of an investigation, the article will be marked effectively as such online and in the PDF to make readers aware. Articles may be retracted for several reasons, including:

  • honest errors reported by the authors (for example, errors due to the mixing up of samples or use of a scientific tool or equipment that is found subsequently to be faulty);
  • research misconduct (data fabrication);
  • duplicate or overlapping publication;
  • fraudulent use of data;
  • clear plagiarism;
  • unethical research.

For any retracted article, the reason for retraction and who is instigating the retraction will be clearly stated in the retraction notice. The retraction notice will be linked to the retracted article (which usually remains on the site), and the article will be clearly marked as retracted.

An article is usually only retracted at the authors’ request or by Open Research Europe in response to an institutional investigation.

The content of a retracted article will be removed where legal limitations have been placed upon Open Research Europe, copyright holder or author(s), for example, if the article is clearly defamatory or infringes others’ legal rights, or if the article is the subject of a court order. In such cases, the bibliographic information for the article will be retained on the site along with information regarding the circumstances that led to the removal of the content. Article content will also be removed if data has been published that poses a serious risk (e.g., to health or security).

The retraction notice will be shown as the latest version of the article that has been retracted. Open Research Europe does not allow subsequent article versions to be published following the publication of a retraction notice.

Editorial note

When a potential issue with an article remains unresolved, an Editorial Note may be used to inform readers. This could apply in cases where Open Research Europe becomes aware of possible research or publication misconduct, or where a significant dispute arises among authors or between authors and external parties. The Editorial Note typically remains in place during the investigation period and until a definitive resolution is reached — such as the release of a corrected version or a formal retraction.

Expression of concern

In rare cases, Open Research Europe may decide to publish an Expression of Concern, which is linked to the problematic article, if there are serious concerns about an article but no conclusive evidence can be obtained that would unequivocally justify a Retraction. This may include:

  • inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct;
  • evidence that there are problems with the article, but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case;
  • a partial or inconclusive investigation into alleged misconduct.

Allegations of misconduct

Open Research Europe is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and provides an ethical framework in accordance with COPE’s codes of conduct for editors and publishers.

When potential research or publication misconduct is brought to our attention, ORE follows the guidance and workflows set out by COPE. As a typical first step, ORE staff would reach out to the individual or individuals implicated in the allegations to seek their explanation. Where necessary, contact may also be taken up with the relevant research institution(s), ethics committee(s), or other external parties.

If you suspect potential misconduct in an article published on Open Research Europe, please contact the editorial team. Following this, a member of the editorial team will contact you within 10 working days to confirm the details that you have provided and ask any additional questions needed for us to investigate. 

Appeals and complaints

Open Research Europe follows the COPE guidelines in relation to complaints and appeals. If you wish to make an appeal about an editorial decision or make a complaint, you should contact the editorial team. Authors may appeal an editorial decision if they believe it was based on a factual error, a misunderstanding of the work, or a significant departure from these guidelines. When contacting the editorial team regarding an appeal, please provide specific responses to any of the peer reviewers’ comments that contributed to the not approved decision, or the editorial team’s comments that contributed to the decision. Authors can also provide any new information or data that you would like us to take into consideration, or evidence of technical errors in reviewer assessments of a manuscript.

Should an author believe or discover a reviewer conflict of interest, please include evidence of this when formulating the appeal.

Complaints about any aspect of the publication process, including editorial handling, reviewer conduct, harassment, or the application of these policies, should be submitted in writing to the editorial team.

Policy for comments on articles

While peer reviewers are formally invited, ORE also encourages unsolicited open scientific discussion on all articles and such contributions can be published through our Comment system on each article page.  ORE welcomes comments from readers who have demonstrable expertise in a relevant area of research, including independent scholars and citizen scientists. Consistent with our commitment to full transparency, the reader’s full name and affiliation appear on their public comment.

Comments should focus on the scholarly content presented in the articles with which they are associated.

Comments that appear to be advertising, are potentially libelous or legally problematic (including comments revealing patient information) are not permitted. Comments that are offensive, indecent or contain negative comments of a personal, racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, or religious character will not be published.

All Comments must be written in good English; a Comment may be rejected if it is deemed unintelligible.

While open scientific debate and discussion is welcomed at ORE, abusive behaviour towards our authors and reviewers via our Comment system or via social media will not be tolerated. In extreme cases, ORE may contact affiliated institutions to report such abusive behaviour. Open Research Europe will not tolerate any kind of harassment or bullying of authors, reviewers or editorial staff. All comments are moderated before publication and any comments that are deemed inappropriate will be rejected.

The peer review model

Peer review of articles on Open Research Europe 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, Open Research Europe 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 reviewing works page.

Revisions and updates are published as new versions, with clear explanations (in an 'Amendments' section) of the changes the authors made.

Usually, an article receives 2 or 3 peer review reports. The reviewers choose an approval status, which contributes to determining whether the article has ‘passed peer review’ and is indexed in bibliographic databases. Following submission of a report by a reviewer, it is assigned a DOI and published openly on the website alongside the corresponding article.

Reviewer criteria

Open Research Europe offers authors the opportunity to list potential referees for their manuscript. The final choice of reviewer for any manuscript lies at the discretion of the Open Research Europe editorial team.

When selecting reviewers, authors must apply the following criteria:

  • Scientific expertise: reviewers must have demonstrated expertise in the key topics of the study presented and/or the methods used. They must have published at least three articles as a lead author in a relevant topic, with at least one article having been published in the last five years.
  • Level of experience: reviewers must have reached a certain level of qualification (in the life sciences, usually a PhD or MD) and have a formal appointment at a recognised institution or organisation.
  • Independence: reviewers must not be working at the same institute as the authors, should not be close collaborators of the authors or in other ways personally, financially or professionally associated with them. Reviewers must declare any conflicts of interest on the published peer review.

Authors must not list reviewers whose identities that are fabricated, stolen, or associated with email addresses controlled by the authors or their associates.

Reviewer conflicts of interest

Reviewers must declare any competing interest before beginning a review. A conflict of interest should be declared if the reviewer has any of the following relationships with any author of the manuscript:

  • Current or recent co-authorship (within the past 5 years) on any publication
  • A supervisory, mentorship, or employment relationship
  • A close personal relationship (close friendship or family relationship)
  • A competing financial, commercial, or professional interest in the outcomes of the research
  • An ongoing professional dispute or adversarial relationship

The reviewer CoI statement will be published openly alongside the reviewer report on the Open Research Europe website.

Stopping peer review

Peer review may be discontinued on some articles, for example, that have not received sufficient peer review reports after a long period of time.

Authors may choose to stop peer review at any time, but particularly if:

  • their article has not received any reports after 6 months, or
  • only 1 report has been received after 9 months.

Open Research Europe may choose to stop peer review if:

  • over 50 individual invitations have been sent with a resulting 0 or 1 report returned.

In cases where peer review is no longer actively being pursued, the Open Research Europe team may add an explanation on the article to alert readers.

Articles with 0 or 1 reports have not passed peer review and are not indexed in PubMed, Scopus and other bibliographic databases; if peer review is stopped in consultation with the editorial team, the article (which is permanently published with a DOI and cannot be removed) can be considered equivalent to a preprint and the authors may choose to submit the manuscript to a journal for peer review and publication elsewhere (it is at the discretion of the journal editors the authors are submitting to how they consider the history of the article at Open Research Europe).

Confidentiality and occurring conflicts of interest throughout the peer review process

Open Research Europe operates a fully transparent and open peer review process, aimed at reducing bias, increasing constructive feedback and providing direct recognition for reviewers. This process opens the possibility for authors to contact referees throughout the peer review process, following submission and publication of a referee report. ORE believes that any contact between authors and referees should be made transparent to maintain the trust in its publishing process.

As such, it is required that any contact between an author and a reviewer initiated by either party should be declared to the editorial team at the earliest opportunity and added to the Conflict of Interest statements in the manuscript (by the author) and referee report (by the reviewer).

Advertising

Open Research Europe does not publish advertorial articles. Advertisers have no influence on the editorial publication process. Any advertisements, such as online banner adverts, must be clearly distinguished from published content. The publisher reserves the right to place the word “Advertisement” in any material that may – in the publisher’s opinion – be potentially confused with peer-reviewed research content.

Harassment

Open Research Europe believes that relationships built on mutual respect better serve the individuals and the wider community and thus will not tolerate any kind of harassment or bullying of authors, reviewers or editorial staff. Our staff members will display, and in return expect, professional and respectful interactions in their work.