Who and why do researchers opt to publish in post-publication peer review platforms? - findings from a review and survey of F1000 Research

Jamie J Kirkham · David Moher

27 citations0/0 files storedF1000Research

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Academic Publishing and Open Access Publishing and Scholarly Communication scientometrics and bibliometrics research

Abstract

Background: Preprint servers and alternative publication platforms enable authors to accelerate the dissemination of their research. In recent years there has been an exponential increase in the use of such servers and platforms in the biomedical sciences, although little is known about who, why and what experiences researchers have with publishing on such platforms. In this article we explore one of these alternative publication platforms, F1000 Research, which offers immediate publication followed by post-publication peer review. Methods: From an unselected cohort of articles published between 13 th July 2012 and 30 th November 2017 in F1000 Research , we provided a summary of who and what was published on this platform and calculated the percentage of published articles that had been indexed on a bibliographic database ( PubMed ) following successful post-publication peer review. We also surveyed corresponding authors to further understand the rationale and experiences of those that have published using this platform. Results: A total of 1865 articles had been published in the study cohort period, of which 80% (n=1488) had successfully undergone peer review and were indexed on PubMed within a minimum period of six months since first publication. Nearly three-quarters of articles passed the peer review process with their initial submission. Survey responses were received from 296 corresponding authors. Open access, open peer review and the speed of publication were the three main reasons why authors opted to publish with F1000 Research . Conclusions: Many who published with F1000 Research had a positive experience and indicated that they would publish again with this same platform in the future. Nevertheless, there remained some concerns about the peer review process and the quality of the articles that were published.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 27 citations exist upstream.

References

1999Effect of open peer review on quality of reviews and on reviewers'recommendations: a randomised trial 2017Survey on open peer review: Attitudes and experience amongst editors, authors and reviewers 2018Altmetric Scores, Citations, and Publication of Studies Posted as Preprints 2015An Open Science Peer Review Oath 2016Towards an open science publishing platform

Cited by

2023The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review 2024Additional experiments required: A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review 2023Perspectives on systematic review protocol registration: a survey amongst stakeholders in the clinical research publication process 2025International initiatives to enhance awareness and uptake of open research in psychology: a systematic mapping review

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.