Giulia Malaguarnera explores how Open Research Europe differs from a traditional pre-print server to provide researchers with improved research integrity, and why she selected the Open Research Europe Platform as her publishing venue compared to previous pre-print experiences.
Pre-print articles have been a fundamental part of the research process for decades, encouraging rapid publication of research in an open forum. This was heightened during the COVID-19 pandemic when the publication process needed to be accelerated, and the research community was encouraged to share their research as quickly as possible to increase the pace of discovery.
However, pre-print servers have many drawbacks – principally concerns over trusting findings that lack the validation of peer review – and a new approach is needed that combines rapid publication with research integrity.
I explore this further in this blog, as well as my own experience as an author in deciding to publish with Open Research Europe over a pre-print server.
The highs and lows of the pre-print
The pre-print is not new to most researchers. The pre-print was born in 1961 when the USA National Institutes of Health (NIH) launched a program called “Information Exchange Groups”, with the first repositories following later with the foundation of arXiv in 1991.
However, at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the pre-print was a new concept for the majority of journalists and the general public, when pre-print research was suddenly being used in the reporting of the virus and to increase public understanding.
With easy, fast publication in openly searchable repositories, pre-prints have long been a positive stepping stone between submission and peer review to allow rapid dissemination of key research, especially in outbreak situations like COVID-19.
Yet, concerns over the validity of pre-prints often arise when considering research integrity. In some situations, pre-print research can cause false public trust, or even mistrust, when findings don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny during later peer review or require retraction, especially when used during media reporting.
This potential misuse, misunderstanding, and miscommunication of findings, alongside lack of rigorous peer review and reputable indexation, can increase mistrust – within both researchers who may already be reluctant to embrace open research practices, and the public audience who is accustomed to trusting articles reported on in the media.
Open Research Europe: a new approach to research integrity
As a result, a different approach was needed that combined the speed of a pre-print with robust peer review to help build public and academic trust in the research process and methods, while still enabling rapid dissemination of cutting-edge findings.
Open Research Europe uses a new publishing model that combines rapid publication with a focus on quality and transparency to achieve this.
Launched in 2021 for European Commission-funded research, the publishing Platform initially opened to Horizon 2020 beneficiaries but has since been extended for Horizon Europe and Euratom-funded researchers, as well as other co-funded projects.
Part of its workflow is like that of a pre-print server, where authors rapidly publish their initial article on the Platform before peer review is undertaken.
However, unlike pre-print servers which serve merely as a repository for unreviewed draft papers, stringent checks are conducted on each submitted manuscript before publication.
Similarly, open peer review takes place immediately after the publication of an article, with the Open Research Europe editorial team coordinating an invited, formal peer review process for every article published on the Platform.
The publishing process on the Platform is fully transparent, from the initial article to the open peer review reports and the final revised versions of the article, which are then indexed in well-known databases such as Scopus.
Choosing Open Research Europe over a pre-print server
I published my first article on the Open Research Europe Platform in June 2021, which sets out a roadmap of current gut models to facilitate the choice in preclinical and traditional research with a focus on gut-on-chip.
My motivation behind choosing Open Research Europe as my publication venue was based on several factors.
Fast publication in a rapidly evolving industry
At the time, I was working at a start-up company experiencing the transition from academia to the industrial sector. The project I was working on was highly interdisciplinary, exploring the emerging sector of ‘organs-on-a-chip’, where artificial devices are developed for simulating organs in vitro.
Writing a review was not an easy task because industry and academia in this research area were (and still are!) rapidly and continuously producing new devices. I felt that the article I was writing was never-ending and publishing an initial version quickly would permit me to stop updating and finally get the first version published while it was still accurate and relevant.
Open Research Europe allowed me to publish my initial research much more rapidly at the time I needed it to be published, thanks to the post-publication peer review model.
Support for diverse article types
Similarly, traditional journals rarely accept diverse article types, including Review Articles like the one I published, unless they are specifically solicited by the journal editors.
The breadth of articles supported by the Platform, from Method Articles to Software Tool Articles, means researchers can get credit for each step of their research project while bringing light to parts of the research process that may not normally be published in this way.
Innovative publishing model
The publishing model itself is very appealing.
There is no editorial board that may result in editorial bias. Instead, the process focuses on peer review from experts; the scope is wide enough to incorporate lots of exciting research; authors decide which research to publish and lead the peer review process by identifying their own reviewers; and there are no limits in length, format, number of citations, perceived impact in the discipline, or aims of the journal.
Rigorous checks and research integrity
Additionally, I have always had personal reservations over pre-prints, with concerns about research quality and the lack of pre-publication checks.
The rigorous pre-publication checks employed on Open Research Europe, however, provide confidence in the model, as well as the research itself. These checks include:
- Authorship and author affiliation
- Any instances of plagiarism
- Compliance with all ethical guidelines concerning the research including consent
- Potential conflicts of interest
- Compliance with open data guidelines and policies
- Adequate protocol information to make the data useful and the work reproducible
Indexation in scholarly databases such as Scopus only happens after peer review is successful, again maintaining research integrity of articles published on the Platform.
Helpful and friendly team
Finally, the team itself is a real bonus to the Platform.
The feedback that I was given was very precise and in-depth, focusing on the specifics of the paper. I felt like the team at Open Research Europe really understood my work (and cared about it), while being professional and stringent.
Supporting a new approach
I think that the essence of being a researcher is in trying new things: whether it’s a new machine, a new software, a new infrastructure, or a new publishing model.
It was an easy decision for me to become an “early adopter” of Open Research Europe. By submitting an article to the Platform, I have experienced all the aspects of open access publishing that I love the most.
I can also publish at no cost to me as the Article Processing Charges are covered directly by the European Commission, and I am meeting the open research principles and requirements of my grant, as these fully align with the Platform’s publishing policies.
Open Research Europe consistently publishes high-quality work from top researchers throughout Europe who have received a prestigious grant, which only serves to solidify my perception of it as a trustworthy publishing venue.
