Policies

1. Publication Criteria

Open Research Europe is an open access publishing platform for the publication of research stemming from various European Commission funding programmes across all subject areas – the full list of eligible programmes can be found here. The platform makes it easy for European Commission beneficiaries to comply with the open access terms of their funding and offers researchers a publishing venue to share their results and insights rapidly and facilitate open, constructive research discussion.

The eligibility criteria for publishing with Open Research Europe are the following:

At least one author must be involved in a running or finished research project from the European Commission and the article must be a result of that project.
The article must be original work (see section on Originality).

There are no fees for publication for European Commission beneficiaries and all publication costs are covered by the European Commission.

Open Research Europe publishes articles in all subject areas funded by the European Commission 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.

2. Originality

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 or review elsewhere. If there is any significant overlap with another article, this must be cited in the article and mentioned on submission. All articles are checked for plagiarism on submission; if clear plagiarism (including self-plagiarism) is identified, the article will be rejected.

Articles previously posted on a preprint server, such as ArXiv, SSRN, bioRxiv or MedRxiv can be submitted for publication in Open Research Europe.

Submitted articles with content that infringes copyright may be rejected if the problematic sections cannot be removed.

Authors who wish to reproduce a figure or table from a previous copyrighted publication are responsible for obtaining the permission of copyright holders and for clearly referencing the original source. Figures that were previously published under a creative commons license may be reused under the condition of the specific license that applies to those figures.

3. Authorship

All authors should have made a clear contribution to the published article. As a guide, authors should refer to the criteria for authorship that have been developed by The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Each author’s contribution must be detailed by selecting CRediT roles on the article submission form.

Anyone who has contributed but does not meet the criteria for authorship (for example, purely technical or writing assistance) should be listed in the ‘Acknowledgments’ section. 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.

Authors must be aware that using AI-based tools and technologies for article content generation, e.g. large language models (LLMs), generative AI, and chatbots (e.g. ChatGPT), is not in line with our authorship criteria. All authors are wholly responsible for the originality, validity and integrity of the content of their submissions. Therefore, LLMs and other similar types of tools do not meet the criteria for authorship.

Any assistance from AI tools for content generation (e.g. LLMs) and other similar types of technical tools which generate article content, must be clearly acknowledged within the article. It is the responsibility of authors to ensure the validity, originality and integrity of their article content. Authors are expected to use these types of tools responsibly and in accordance with our editorial policies on authorship and principles of publishing ethics.

Correspondence with authors: If an author requires a change to the article, the editorial office will require confirmation of the identification of the individual. Usually, this will be via sending an email using the email address that Open Research Europe has stored on the system. If this is no longer possible, please contact the editorial team, who will be able to assist with confirmation of identification.

Changes in authorship: If the author list of an article changes following its publication, 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. In agreement with COPE guidelines, 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. Following a name change request, the editorial office will require confirmation of the identification of the individual, as per all communications with authors, as we will need to check you are requesting the name change on your own behalf. To avoid any distress this process may cause, Open Research Europe is keen to work with researchers to enable them to provide identification on their own terms. We do not require legal or official proof of a name change.

Researchers should note that the corresponding author will be contacted to make them aware that a name change has taken place. Researchers may wish to inform their co-authors of the change, for example so that they use an updated offline copy or change the way they cite the publication. Or researchers can rely on a notification from us to the corresponding author alone and the updated online version. Please inform us if we should wait until a particular date to enact the name change to give researchers time to communicate with co-authors if desired. If there are any reasons that the corresponding researcher should not be contacted, please let us know.

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 unless requested by the researcher; if requested, the following standard text will be used: ‘A name change in the author list of this article was requested. The change was implemented on <date>’.

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

Please note that Open Research Europe considers it a violation of publishing and personal ethics to request to change the name of another individual without their explicit consent. If an author, reviewer or commenter requires a name change, please contact the editorial office. 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.

Submitting author(s) and co-authors are invited to provide an ORCID iD upon submission. Co-authors will be invited to connect their ORCID iD once an article has been published.

4. Competing Interests

Authors must include a ‘Competing interests’ statement. 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 organization, or holding stocks or shares from a company, that might benefit (or lose) financially from the publication of the findings;
individuals or their funding organization 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.

Authors from pharmaceutical companies, or other commercial organizations 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 organization 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.

5. Ethical 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 ethics and integrity in Article 14 of the Model Grant Agreement of Horizon Europe. Guidelines on fulfilling these requirements are provided in the extensive guidance on Horizon Europe proposal ethics self-assessment and in the Horizon Europe Annotated Grant Agreement.

Specifically, all project Proposals must complete the Ethics Issues Table as part of the application process and are required to complete the Ethics Self-Assessment form if any ethics issues are identified. Proposals addressing one of the following topics may undergo further ethics checks:

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

Use of human (embryonic) stem cells and/or human embryos requires an ethics assessment and adherence to the Statement by the Commission on ethics/stem cell research – Article 19.

If no issues are identified during the completion of the Ethics Issues Table, further ethics approval may not be required except as required by national law and practice.

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, which will be requested at submission.

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

6. Inappropriate Image Manipulation

Images published in Open Research Europe should accurately reflect the original image. As such, we require that all images, whether submitted as figures or uploaded as data, are not manipulated so that readers are not misled about what the images indicate. We understand that it is standard practice to use software to modify images to make them clearer and easier to interpret. However, any modifications that are made to images should be minor and must be made uniformly to the whole image.

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.

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.

We also require the original, uncropped, unannotated and unprocessed versions of all scientific images, which we consider 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 random selected figures and data using Adobe Photoshop and forensic image analysis software developed by the US Office of Research Integrity. 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.

7. Registration of Trials and Systematic Reviews

7.1 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 we expect trials to be registered before patient recruitment starts, several initiatives (such as the AllTrials campaign) have recognized 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.

7.2 Systematic Reviews Registration

We encourage authors to register their systematic reviews in PROSPERO or another registry for systematic reviews. The registration number should be included in the article.

7.3 Preregistration

We encourage 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.

8. 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. In order to ensure a minimum level of reproducibility for methods, we require authors 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, we strongly advocate authors to deposit step-by-step descriptions of their protocols on protocols.io and to include the persistent DOI in the Methods section of the manuscript,

We ensure that authors follow standards of reporting guidelines, which help authors to ensure that a comprehensive description of their research is provided, making it easier for others to assess and reproduce the work. Authors are required to review the standards available for many research applications from Equator Network and use those that are relevant for the reported research applications. At manuscript submission, authors must confirm that they reviewed the standards, report whether any standards were relevant for the research application, and confirm that they followed those standards in the manuscript. Adherence to reporting guidelines, if appropriate, will be assessed by the editorial team. For more detail and a comprehensive overview, see the FAIRSharing initiative.

We encourage authors to add Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) to their article in order to unambiguously identify the following types of resources: antibodies, genetically modified organisms, software tools, data, databases and services.

This is all in line with relevant Horizon Europe policies as detailed in the Horizon Europe Annotated Model Grant Agreement and the General Annex of the Horizon Europe Work Programme (p30), which both require beneficiaries to provide information about any research output, or any other tools and instruments needed to re-use or validate the conclusions of the publication/data.

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. We encourage authors to consult the guidelines before performing their research and when writing their article. Our SAGER guideline checklist can be found here.

9. Data Availability

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

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.

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 data to research data underlying publications on Open Research Europe are permitted in alignment to the European Commission’s relevant policy in Horizon Europe. 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.

If you think that any of these exceptions apply to your article, please let the editorial team know at the submission stage, as we have policies in place to allow the publication of papers associated with such data, while maintaining the appropriate level of security. For details on how to provide information on any data sharing exceptions in your article’s data availability statement please see our Data Guidelines.

We expect all qualitative and quantitative data to be shared in English. If your dataset is not currently available in English, please contact the editorial team.

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.

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 data has been obtained from social media sites, we ask that authors do not share this data due to ethical and copyright restrictions. This includes reproductions of the data in the manuscript, 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 Twitter, 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 Twitter’s API. Datasets containing Tweet/User IDs should be uploaded as per our data guidelines under a CC0 Public D omain 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. The editorial team can then advise on hosting.

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 cased 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 organizations (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 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.

This is all in line with relevant Horizon Europe policies as detailed in the Horizon Europe Annotated Model Grant Agreement (p110) and the General Annex of the Horizon Europe Work Programme (p30), which both require beneficiaries to provide information about any research output or any other tools and instruments needed to re-use or validate the conclusions of the publication/data.

10. 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 usually 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 his/her 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.

11. 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, thus fulfilling the Commission’s requirement for open access through repositories. 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 and when they occur.

Clicking on the CrossMark logo (at the top of each Open Research Europe article) 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.

11.1 Correction 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 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 summarized in the ‘Amendments’ section at the start of a new version.

11.2 Retraction

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 (including the PDF).

An article is usually only retracted at the authors’ request or by the publisher in response to an institutional investigation. It is important to note in the context of Open Research Europe’s publication model, that ‐ as in traditional journals ‐ a retracted article is not ‘unpublished’ or ‘withdrawn’ in order for it to be published elsewhere. The reasons for retraction are usually so serious that the whole study, or large parts of it, are not appropriate for inclusion in the scientific literature anywhere.

The content of a retracted article would only be removed where legal limitations have been placed upon the publisher, 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.

Under rare circumstances, for example, if false or inaccurate data have been published that, if acted upon, pose a serious health risk, the original incorrect version(s) may be removed and a corrected version published. The reason for this partial removal would be clearly stated on the latest version.

11.3 Editorial Note

If there is a potential, not yet resolved, problem with an article, it may be appropriate to alert readers with an Editorial Note. Such an Editorial Note may be added, for example, if Open Research Europe receives information that research or publication misconduct might have taken place, or that there is a serious dispute between authors or between the authors and third parties. The Editorial Note will usually be posted while further investigations take place and until a more permanent solution has been found (e.g. the publication of a revised ‘corrected’ version, or a Retraction).

11.4 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:

if there is inconclusive evidence of research or publication misconduct
there is evidence that there are problems with the article, but the authors’ institution will not investigate the case
an investigation into alleged misconduct has not been impartial or conclusive

12. 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.

If a case of suspected research or publication misconduct is brought to our attention, we will follow the guidance and workflows recommended by COPE. In the first instance this will usually involve contacting the person/persons about whom the allegations have been raised to request an explanation. We may also need to contact the involved party’s research institution, an ethics committee or other third parties.

Research misconduct includes data fabrication or falsification, or cases where research involving animals or humans has not been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. Publication misconduct includes duplicate publication of articles or clear plagiarism. Honest errors or differences of opinion are not considered ‘misconduct’.

If you suspect potential misconduct in an article published on Open Research Europe, please contact the F1000 editorial office (editorial@open-research-europe.ec.europa.eu) – 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. Please be aware that it may not be possible to keep you updated throughout the process, however we will endeavour to let you know the outcome where appropriate.

13. 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 office. In the instance that your issue cannot be resolved by the editorial office, the Business and Publishing Lead should be contacted via the editorial office.

14. Policy for Comments on Articles

While peer reviewers are formally invited, we encourage unsolicited open scientific discussion on all articles. Such contributions are published through our Comment system. To ensure that comments contribute to, and focus on, the scholarly debate, we welcome comments from readers with a formal affiliation with a research institution, or other organisation clearly related to the Open Research Europe scope. We also welcome 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 libellous or legally problematic (including comments revealing patient information) are not permitted. We will not accept Comments that are offensive, indecent or contain negative comments of a personal, racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, or religious character.

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

Readers who wish to comment on an article are asked to declare any competing interests. Competing interests can be of a financial nature (e.g. holding a patent or receiving fees from a company that may lose or gain financially from the publication of the Comment), or they can be personal, religious, political or other non-financial interests. When completing your declaration, please consider the issues summarized in the Declaration of Competing Interests.

While we welcome open scientific debate and discussion, we will not tolerate abusive behaviour towards our authors and reviewers via our Comment system or via social media. In extreme cases we will consider contacting the affiliated institution to report the abusive behaviour of individuals.

15. 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 it 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.

16. 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.

17. Harassment

Open Research Europe will not tolerate any kind of harassment of authors, reviewers or editorial staff. To assist researchers in dealing with harassment, we follow guidance from the Science Media Centre.