eLife – InfoDoc MicroVeille

Authors : Rüdiger Mutz, Lutz Bornmann, Hans‑Dieter Daniel

At the end of January 2023, eLife introduced a new publishing model (alongside the old-traditional-publishing model): all manuscripts submitted as preprints are peer-reviewed and published if they are deemed worthy of review by the editorial team (“editorial triage”). The model abandons the gatekeeping function and retains the previous “consultative approach to peer review”.

Even under the changed conditions, the question of the quality of judgements in the peer review process remains. In this study, the reviewers’ ratings of manuscripts submitted to eLife were examined in terms of both descriptive comparisons of peer review models, and the following selected quality criteria of peer review: interrater agreement and interrater reliability. eLife provided us with the data on all manuscripts submitted in 2023 according to the new publishing model (group 3, N = 3,846), as well as manuscripts submitted according to the old publishing model (group 1: N = 6,592 submissions from 2019; group 2: N = 364 submissions from 2023).

The interrater agreement and interrater reliability for the criteria “significance of findings” and “strength of support” were similarly low, as previous empirical studies for gatekeeping journals have shown.

The fairness of peer review is not or only slightly compromised. We used the empirical results of our study to recommend several improvements to the new publishing model introduced by eLife as for example, increasing transparency, masking author identity or increasing the number of expert reviewers.

URL : Scientific publishing without gatekeeping: an empirical investigation of eLife’s new peer review process

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-025-05422-y

Authors : John Willinsky, Matthew Rusk

Following on recent initiatives in which funders and libraries directly fund open access publishing, this study works out the economics of systematically applying this approach to three biomedical and biology publishing entities by determining the publishing costs for the funders that sponsored the research, while assigning the costs for unsponsored articles to the libraries.

The study draws its data from the non-profit biomedical publishers eLife and PLOS, and the nonprofit journal aggregator BioOne, with this sample representing a mix of publishing revenue models, including funder sponsorship, article processing charges (APC), and subscription fees.

This funder-library open access subscription model is proposed as an alternative to both the closed-subscription model, which funders and libraries no longer favor, and the APC open access model, which has limited scalability across scholarly publishing domains.

Utilizing PubMed filtering and manual-sampling strategies, as well as publicly available publisher revenue data, the study demonstrates that in 2015, 86 percent of the articles in eLife and PLOS acknowledged funder support, as did 76 percent of the articles in the largely subscription journals of BioOne. Twelve percent of the articles identified the NIH as a funder, 8 percent identifies other U.S. government agencies.

Approximately half of the articles were funded by non-U.S. government agencies, including 1 percent by Wellcome Trust and 0.5 percent by Howard Hughes Medical Institute. For 17 percent of the articles, which lacked a funder, the study demonstrates how a collection of research libraries, similar to the one currently subscribing to BioOne, could cover publishing costs.

The goal of the study is to inform stakeholder considerations of open access models that can work across the disciplines by (a) providing a cost breakdown for direct funder and library support for open access publishing; (b) positing the use of publishing data-management organizations (such as Crossref and ORCID) to facilitate per article open access support; and (c) proposing ways in which such a model offers a more efficient, equitable, and scalable approach to open access than the prevailing APC model, which originated with biomedical publishing.

URL : If funders and libraries subscribed to open access: The case of eLife, PLOS, and BioOne

DOI : https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.3392v1