Back in January 2023, we switched to a new way of publishing research.
Since then we’ve reached more than 10,000 submissions, so thank you to everyone who has submitted their work so far.
To celebrate reaching this milestone, we’re reflecting on how the model is making a positive impact, the practicalities of submitting your research, as well as highlighting some author feedback from their experience of publishing with us.
The eLife model for public review and assessment
Shifting the focus to what you publish rather than where, the open nature of publishing Reviewed Preprints and giving authors control of their work, is helping to change the way research is shared and communicated.
All papers sent for review are published on our website as Reviewed Preprints, with an eLife Assessment – a summary of what the editors and reviewers thought about the preprint – and Public Reviews.
Authors then retain control of their papers and decide what to do next:
- Revise and resubmit
- Submit elsewhere
- Declare a Version of Record
We believe this better captures the nuanced, multidimensional and often ambiguous nature of peer review than a binary accept/reject decision, and gives you a faster, fairer and more transparent way to share your research.
How does the process work?
For more information on the practicalities of the eLife model, watch our video explaining how the process works, or read our blog on submitting to us.
What is publishing in the eLife model like?
We’ve been speaking to authors who have been helping us to change the established publishing system by submitting their work to us:
“...our experience with eLife has been positive, as the review process is transparent and fair, and we appreciate having control over the fate of our manuscript.”
Ushio Masayuki, Assistant Professor at the Department of Ocean Science at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST)
“The entire publication and review process are more transparent.”
Chunxiao Li, postdoctoral researcher in vertebrate paleontology, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing.
“... we liked the idea of having an open “conversation” with the reviewers during the process and having the chance to polish the manuscript by following the editors and reviewers’ recommendations without the threat of rejection”
Patrick Allard, Professor in the Division of Life Sciences at University of California, Los Angeles.
“The intent of the entire [eLife] team to make peer review an easier process…for the authors is heartening, which allows the authors to focus on the science and not worry about the ‘gladiatorial up-or-down vote’ that we have unfortunately become accustomed to in the publishing process.”
Subhash Kulkarni, faculty member at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center (an affiliate of Harvard Medical School)
“It was certainly the most pleasant and constructive peer review process I have experienced so far, and that was down to receiving very reasonable reviews alongside having complete freedom over how we respond to them.”
Rebecca Jordan, Principal Investigator at the University of Edinburgh.
Want to get involved?
- Preprint your research - it benefits you and your research community.
- Read and share Reviewed Preprints in your area of research.
- Submit your research
