Guidelines For Article Reviewers

Home For Reviewers Guidelines

Reviewer Guidelines

F1000Research’s peer review model

Peer review of articles on F1000Research 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, F1000Research 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.

Peer review reports are published alongside the reviewers’ full names and affiliations, and remain attached to the article, including if it is indexed with sites such as PubMed and Scopus. Your report will be published, citable, and have a DOI. Peer review directly determines whether an article will be indexed, via the approval status that reviewers select when reviewing the article.

We are very appreciative of the work our reviewers do for us, and believe it is important for them to be rewarded for the time and effort they spend assessing papers, as peer review is an invaluable contribution to the scientific community. We provide Benefits for Reviewers as a thank you for their work.

If you’ve been invited to review an article and would like more information on our model, please visit our How it Works page. Alternatively, please use the menu to the left for more detailed information on the peer review process.

Article Submission

Publication &
Data Deposition

Open Peer Review
& User Commenting

Article Revision

Scope and article eligibility

F1000Research publishes research articles within the exact sciences, life sciences, medicine, social sciences, and humanities, without editorial bias, including papers reporting single findings, replications studies, and null results or negative findings. Reviewers are asked to assess the scientific validity of the article, rather than the novelty or interest levels. All articles and peer review reports are Open Access and published under a CC-BY license. F1000Research also has an Open Data policy: articles discussing original results must make available the underlying source data alongside, and the details of any software used to process them.

Our formal invited open peer-review process occurs after the article is published. Before publication, articles undergo checks by the in-house editorial team to ensure they meet our basic criteria. Our pre-publication checks include:

Eligibility to publish - authors must be active researchers (scientists, scholars or clinicians) and the research must have been carried out at a recognised institution.
Article types - articles are checked whether they meet the criteria and format of specific article types.
Readability - as we do not copy edit articles, the standard of language and readability must be sufficient for readers to be able to follow the article.
Plagiarism - articles are checked for plagiarism before publication.
Methods section - we check that details of methods and resources are provided, so the work can be assessed (we will ask you as an expert reviewer to comment whether more information would be required for others to reproduce the work).
Policies - we check that articles publishing research involving humans or animals adhere to our ethical policies.
Data - we check that the source data underlying the results are made openly available (we will ask you as an expert reviewer to comment whether the source data are appropriate for others to reproduce the work).

Reviewer eligibility

Reviewers are chosen using our reviewer criteria, ensuring that the people invited are experts in their field of research. If a paper includes statistical analysis or new statistical methods, reviewers are also selected based on their knowledge of these fields.

If you have a potential competing interest please contact us before you begin to write the review, so that we can confirm you are eligible. When you submit your report, we also ask that you declare any competing interests so that they can be displayed alongside your review when published.

Peer reviewer code of conduct

The peer review process is a vital component of scholarly publishing. To help ensure that peer review at F1000Research is constructive and beneficial to authors, readers and other reviewers, we ask that reviewers:

Read the article fully - please read the full text of the article and view all associated figures, tables and data;
Be thorough - a peer review report should discuss the article in full as well as individual points, and should demonstrate your understanding of the article;
Be specific - your comments should contain as much detail as possible, with references where appropriate, so the authors are able to fully address the issue;
Be constructive in your criticism - do not hesitate to include any concerns or criticisms you may have in your review, however, please do so in a constructive and respectful manner;
Avoid derogatory comments or tone - review as you wish to be reviewed and ensure that your comments focus on the scientific content of the article in question rather than the authors themselves.
Be objective and impartial - please focus your review on the academic content of the article itself. Avoid being influenced by your own personal opinions of either the article or the authors or the opinions they might express.

We would also recommend that reviewers familiarise themselves with the Committee On Publication Ethics’ (COPE) ethical guidelines for peer reviewers. If the editorial team are concerned that a review does not meet the standards above, we will contact the reviewer before publication of their peer review report.

Guidelines for reviewing

When you agree to review an article published by F1000Research you will receive an email with a link to the article, a proposed deadline, and information on how to submit your report. You should also register an account with us at this stage. If you already have an account with us the request will also appear in your My pages.

Approval status

We ask reviewers to choose an approval status, which both helps directly determine whether an article is indexed with sites such as PubMed and Scopus, and provides readers with an at-a-glance view of your thoughts on the article. The rating should be based on whether the reported findings or analyses are correct and valid, not on the novelty or importance of an article.

The approval statuses to choose from are:

Approved: No or only minor changes are required. This means that the aims and research methods are adequate; results are presented accurately; and the conclusions are justified and supported by the data or supporting material.
Approved with Reservations: The reviewer believes the paper has academic merit, but has asked for a number of small changes to the article, or specific, sometimes more significant revisions.
Not Approved: The article has fundamental flaws that seriously undermine the findings and conclusions. It requires crucial substantial revisions for it to become academically valid.

Writing the review

We also ask reviewers for a report which reflects their assessment of the article, including any constructive criticisms they may have and suggestions for improvement.

All peer review reports on F1000Research are published alongside the reviewer’s full name and affiliation. For the benefit of the authors, readers, and other reviewers we ask that reports meet the following standards:

Reviews should be understandable and well-written - the editorial team will be in touch if we need further clarification or detail.
Reviews should be detailed offering a summary of the article under review as well as an assessment of its quality.
Reviews should not be based on novelty but on the quality of the article under review. Each article type has its own guidelines for review to help with this assessment.
Reviews should be structured, constructive, and offer clear points for authors to address. Our editorial team blog provides advice on how you can structure a review.
Requests for citations of other articles should be justified and reviewers should explicitly state their reasoning when asking authors to cite their own work.

Please note that if reviews do not meet the standards above the editorial team may contact you for further confirmation of clarification.

For specific tips on how to write a peer review report for F1000Research, or for examples of peer review reports we’ve published, please visit Examples and tips for writing peer review reports. Reviewers should alert the peer review team (research@f1000.com) if they wish to make an allegation of publication or research misconduct, e.g. plagiarism or image manipulation, about an article they are reviewing.

Reviewers who have any potential conflict of interest that would not disqualify them from reviewing should indicate this when submitting their review - competing interest declarations will be published alongside their review.

Guidelines for reviewing specific article types

F1000Research asks reviewers a set of questions tailored to each article type, as different article types may require a different focus. Click on the article types below to see the questions.

Research Article

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Is the study design appropriate and does the work have academic merit?
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Brief Report

Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Is the study design appropriate and does the work have academic merit?
Are sufficient details of methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Genome Notes

Are the rationale for sequencing the genome and the species significance clearly described?
Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Are sufficient details of the sequencing and extraction, software used, and materials provided to allow replication by others?
Are the datasets clearly presented in a usable and accessible format, and the assembly and annotation available in an appropriate subject-specific repository?

Policy Brief

Does the paper provide a comprehensive overview of the policy and the context of its implementation in a way which is accessible to a general reader?
Is the discussion on the implications clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Are the recommendations made clear, balanced, and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?

Case Studies

Is the background of the case’s history and progression described in sufficient detail?
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?
Is the case presented with sufficient detail to be useful for teaching or other practitioners?

Systematic Review

Are the rationale for, and objectives of, the Systematic Review clearly stated?
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review?

Software Tool Article

Is the rationale for developing the new software tool clearly explained?
Is the description of the software tool technically sound?
Are sufficient details of the code, methods and analysis (if applicable) provided to allow replication of the software development and its use by others?
Is sufficient information provided to allow interpretation of the expected output datasets and any results generated using the tool?

Method Article

Is the rationale for developing the new method (or application) clearly explained?
Is the description of the method technically sound?
Are sufficient details provided to allow replication of the method development and its use by others?
If any results are presented, are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Are the conclusions about the method and its performance adequately supported by the findings presented in the article?

Data Note

Is the rationale for creating the dataset(s) clearly described?
Are the protocols appropriate and is the work technically sound?
Are sufficient details of methods and materials provided to allow replication by others?
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Study Protocol

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Case Report

Is the background of the case’s history and progression described in sufficient detail?
Are enough details provided of any physical examination and diagnostic tests, treatment given and outcomes?
Is sufficient discussion included of the importance of the findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease processes, diagnosis or treatment?
Is the case presented with sufficient detail to be useful for other practitioners?

Clinical Practice Article

Is the background of the cases’ history and progression described in sufficient detail?
Are enough details provided of any physical examination and diagnostic tests, treatment given and outcomes?
Is sufficient discussion included of the importance of the findings and their relevance to future understanding of disease processes, diagnosis or treatment?
Is the conclusion balanced and justified on the basis of the findings?

Correspondence

Is the rationale for commenting on the previous publication clearly described?
Are any opinions stated well-argued, clear and cogent?
Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature or by new data and results?
Is the conclusion balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?

Review

Is the topic of the review discussed comprehensively in the context of the current literature?
Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?
Is the review written in accessible language?
Are the conclusions drawn appropriate in the context of the current research literature?

Opinion Article

Is the topic of the opinion article discussed accurately in the context of the current literature?
Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations?
Are arguments sufficiently supported by evidence from the published literature?
Are the conclusions drawn balanced and justified on the basis of the presented arguments?

Registered Report

Stage 1

Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Is the study design appropriate for the research question (including statistical power analysis, where appropriate)?
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Have the authors pre-specified sufficient outcome-neutral tests for ensuring that the results obtained can test the stated hypotheses, including positive controls and quality checks?
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?

Stage 2

Are the data able to test the authors’ proposed hypotheses by satisfying the approved outcome-neutral conditions (such as quality checks, positive controls)?
Are the introduction, rationale and stated hypotheses the same as the approved Stage 1 submission? (required)
Did the authors adhere precisely to the registered experimental procedures? If not, has an explanation been provided regarding any change?
Are any unregistered post hoc analyses added by the authors justified, methodologically sound and informative?
Is the work clearly and accurately presented and does it cite the current literature?
Is the study design appropriate and does the work have academic merit?
Are sufficient details of the methods and analysis provided to allow replication by others?
If applicable, is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate?
Are all the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Are the conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results?

Book Chapter

Is the work clearly and accurately presented?
Are all factual statements correct and adequately supported by citations to the current literature?
Are any opinions stated well-argued, clear, and cogent?
If applicable, are any methods and analyses appropriate and sufficiently detailed, to allow replication by others?
If applicable, are the source data underlying the results available to ensure full reproducibility?
Are the conclusions drawn appropriate and justified on the basis of the presented work?
Is the work an appropriate addition to this book project, and does it align with the scope and/or objectives?

How to submit your peer review report

Once you have agreed to review you must create an account with F1000Research if you have not done so already. Next, use the link in your acceptance email to visit your Peer Reviewing page which has a record of any article you have been invited to review. To submit a peer review report, simply go to the ‘Invited Reports’ tab and click “Yes, I agree to be a reviewer for this article” confirm this action and then click “Write your report”. You can then write your report (and save a draft copy if desired), and then preview and submit it. Please note once you’ve submitted a report through the online form it can only be edited by the editorial team.

The peer-review process

Peer review progression

The peer review status of the article changes as the reports are published. The progress of peer review is clearly marked on each article and is part of the citation.

Immediately on publication, and while reviewers are assessing the work, the article is labelled as “Awaiting peer review”. This forms part of the title and is shown in the Open Peer Review summary box within the article HTML and PDF. When a peer review report is received the editorial team will ensure it meets the above guidelines and code of conduct. Reviewers may be contacted at this stage to clarify any issues. Once these checks are complete, reports are published alongside the article and the approval rating is displayed. As additional reports are received, the peer review status is updated. All articles remain fully published and available on F1000Research regardless of their peer review status.

Once an article receives two ‘Approved’ or two ‘Approved with Reservations’ status and one ‘Approved’ status, it will be indexed in PubMed and other bibliographic databases. All versions of the article, along with any associated data sets and peer review reports, will be deposited in PubMed Central.

Article revisions

At any time in the peer review process, the authors may choose to revise their article in response to the reviewer comments – when this happens, a new version is published and the original reviewers are re-invited to review. Reviewers can then publish an updated report, taking the revisions into account.

All versions of the article, and all peer review reports, will remain published so that anyone may see the history of the article. As F1000Research does not have a traditional editorial board we rely on peer reviewers to assess new versions of articles. Updating your review to give feedback on the revised version is very important, as it allows the authors and readers to see whether your concerns have been addressed satisfactorily. The peer review outcome of an article is directly determined by the peer reviewers, and therefore it is important to indicate if you believe your concerns have been addressed with an updated peer review report.

Volunteer to be a reviewer

We would love to hear from you. Please contact our editorial office and let us know you are interested in reviewing. When contacting us, please attach a copy of your CV and complete this form, so that we can be sure you meet our Reviewer Criteria. Don’t hesitate to let us know if there is an article you would like to be considered for, however please bear in mind that we cannot guarantee you will be invited to review a particular manuscript.

About F1000Research

Guidelines for Article Reviewers