In this blog post, Joe Kelly, Associate Editorial Assistant at F1000, discusses how versioning supports transparent research communication between authors and reviewers, and how Open Research Europe displays multiple versions of an article.
Open Research Europe is an open access publishing Platform, which means all published articles, data, and resources are fully accessible to all. The Platform publishes ‘living’ articles, which allows authors to update their research by submitting a new version of their manuscript. This approach to publication allows authors to edit their own work and address any concerns raised by reviewers.
Approval statuses: what do they mean for authors?
A key aspect of Open Research Europe’s post-publication peer review model is the peer review statuses each reviewer assigns to a paper. These statuses determine whether a paper passes peer review, and they also act as a useful shorthand for readers to make it clear whether reviewers have questions that the authors need to address in a new version.
It is important for authors to understand the different types of status that can be awarded and how this can indicate dictate the amount of work that needs to be undertaken for a new version of a paper. The statuses are:
Approved: The article is of an appropriate academic standard. The analysis is accurately presented, and the conclusions are justified and supported by the content of the article. The reviewer may suggest small changes to improve the article or correct minor errors, but these changes will not affect the peer review status.
Approved with reservations: The reviewer believes the article has academic merit but has asked for several small changes to the article or more significant revisions. The reviewers have made it clear that the changes requested are necessary for an ‘Approved’ status to be awarded.
Not approved: The article in its current form has issues that seriously undermine the findings and conclusions. More serious revisions will be required for the paper to pass peer review. It is important to note that a ‘Not Approved’ status does not equate to rejection. In fact, it is possible to improve an article’s status from ‘Not Approved’ to ‘Approved’ upon publication of a new version.
Passing peer review
When an article receives two peer review reports from experts in the field, it then completes the first stage of peer review. However, for the article to be sent to appropriate indexers, it must meet the threshold to be classified as having passed peer review. There are two ways an article can pass peer review:
- If a paper receives two Approved statuses, or;
- If it receives one Approved status and two Approved with Reservations statuses.
Papers that do not meet this threshold will require a new version, and subsequent review to pass peer review and then be sent to relevant indexers. To ensure that authors understand clearly what to include in the new version of the article, Open Research Europe asks reviewers to conform to COPE’s peer review code of conduct. This means reviews need to provide specific and constructive feedback that the authors can realistically address.
Revising, responding, and re-reviewing
Once an author has decided to revise the article, there are several steps taken to make sure that readers and reviewers are informed about the changes made. Authors are encouraged to respond to the reviewers directly through the comments system. This is good scholarly practice, and it allows authors to highlight how they have made changes in the text or explain the reasoning behind choices in the original article. These responses are linked to the published peer review reports for reviewers and readers to see. Each new version comes with an ‘Amendments’ statement which summarizes the main changes from the previous version.
When a new version goes live, we invite the original reviewers to assess the new version and whether they want to update the peer review status. This is a crucial step in the process; unlike traditional journals, Open Research Europe does not have an academic editorial board to assess whether the reviewers’ requests have been met. Our in-house peer review team contacts reviewers and will, at the reviewers’ request, provide a track changed version of the new article to ensure the reviewers come to an appropriate decision and the authors have made sufficient improvements to the article.
While we cannot guarantee that an author’s new article will automatically change the peer review status, reviewers are required to provide a review that explains any objections that could be fixed through future versions. By making this process open and accessible, readers and authors understand the necessary criteria to pass peer review.
Keeping track of new versions
Open Research Europe’s commitment to transparency means that new article versions need to be clear to readers, to ensure they are aware that older versions of the article exist. Each version of an article has its own DOI, which allows for a permanent record of each of the different versions of an article. If a reader views an older version of an article, they will always be told that a new version is available.
Open Research Europe makes the justification of a new article version clear through article tagging. Those marked with [Revised] are the new versions that usually incorporate changes in response to the reviewers’ comments. An article tagged with [Update] is a new version of the article after peer review is complete. This is where authors can incorporate the reviewers’ feedback with small developments that are relevant to the research.
Open Research Europe provides readers with the full context of the author’s development of the research and the justification for creating the new version.
