eLife works to improve the process of peer review so that it more effectively conveys the assessment of expert reviewers to authors, readers and other interested parties. In the future we envision a system in which the outputs of peer review are the primary way research is assessed, rather than journal title.
Our editorial process produces two outputs: i) public reviews designed to be posted alongside a preprint for the benefit of the community; ii) detailed feedback on the manuscript for the authors, including requests for revisions and suggestions for improvement. To learn more, please see “Peer Review: eLife implementing "Publish, then Review" model of publishing”.
Other features of the eLife peer-review process are:
- all decisions are made by editors who are active researchers in the life and biomedical sciences.
- we do not artificially limit the number of articles we publish or have a set acceptance rate.
- editors and reviewers discuss their reviews with each other before reaching a decision on a manuscript; extra experiments are only requested if they are essential and can be reasonably completed within about two months.
- the public reviews, revision recommendations, and author responses are published with accepted manuscripts.
The overall aim is to make peer review faster, fairer and more open. eLife does not support the Impact Factor and is a co-founder of the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). Regularly updated metrics relating to the eLife editorial process are available in our Author Guide.
- Peer Review: New initiatives to enhance the value of eLife’s process (Michael Eisen, eLife Editor-in-Chief, November 2019)
- Author Guide
- eLife: Changing the review process (video, February 2014)