Scientific Publishing: How and why eLife selects papers for peer review

When deciding which submissions should be peer reviewed, eLife editors consider whether they will be able to find high-quality reviewers, and whether the reviews will be valuable to the scientific community.

eLife is working to promote a culture in which the actual content of a paper is more important than the name of the journal in which it is published. A culture in which scientific research is first disseminated as a preprint and then assessed and evaluated in depth by experts. This is why papers published in eLife include the preprint itself, an eLife assessment and Public Reviews written by the editor and reviewers, and a response from the authors (if available).

By making the views of expert editors and reviewers an integral part of the published paper, we hope to improve the way that scientific research is assessed and evaluated. Where readers are experts, they can assess the work for themselves. If not, they can rely on our Public Reviews, which go into the strengths and weaknesses of the paper in detail. And if they require a concise critique, they can read the eLife assessment, which summarises the significance of the findings reported in the paper (on a scale ranging from useful to landmark) and the strength of the evidence (inadequate to exceptional).

This approach of moving beyond binary accept/reject decisions and more fully conveying the views of expert reviewers has many advantages. It helps those who have to evaluate researchers and their work to make better-informed decisions about funding, hiring and promotion. It means that reviewers cannot prevent the publication of a paper that has been selected for peer review, which allows authors to engage more freely with reviewers during the revision process, without worrying about having to start over at a new journal. It also ensures that comments from the reviewers are valued as an integral part of the scientific literature. Overall, this approach enables the rapid and scholarly dissemination of new scientific knowledge in a way that permits the views and constructive criticisms of expert reviewers to be openly considered by both authors and readers. More information is available on the eLife website: elifesciences.org/about/peer-review.

If this is what we want, why do we only review some papers and not others? Achieving our goals requires us to make tough choices about which submissions to prioritise for in-depth review. Our mission will succeed only if we ensure that our unique offering – Public Reviews plus an eLife assessment – remains high quality, and that our reviews are read and have influence.

Finding the right reviewers

Recruiting good reviewers is difficult, and it is getting more difficult as the volume of published work increases year-on-year. Importantly, it is easier to find reviewers, particularly those with the deep expertise we need, for work that is interesting and rigorous. People simply prefer to review work that is of interest to them, and the same is true when it comes to finding editors to oversee the review process.

So there is a clear tension: we would like the outputs of the eLife peer-review process to be of the highest quality, but preparing such assessments is easier for work that editors and reviewers are willing to engage with. Therefore, one clear reason for why we only peer review some submissions is to ensure the quality and rigour of what we produce.

Focusing our efforts

We must continue to focus our efforts on those papers where the outputs of the eLife peer-review process are most valuable. This is not the same as deciding which papers are “the best”. For example, there might be value in reviewing work that is controversial in a particular field of research. However, it does mean concentrating on papers where we believe the scientific content will be most inspiring to eLife readers.

Just as editors and reviewers prefer to review work that is of interest to them, as readers we scientists pay more attention to reviews of work that has the potential to change the way we think about a question. Therefore, if we are going to change scientific publishing for the better, we will do so faster by focusing our efforts on such papers.

How it works

The peer-review process at eLife is overseen by a team of over 70 Senior Editors and more than 700 Reviewing Editors. Every paper submitted to the journal is assigned to a Senior Editor, who generally asks a small number of Reviewing Editors about the submission. The Reviewing Editors offer their scientific views on the paper, and there is an open discussion about whether to review the paper, using the reasoning laid out above. Editors are considering whether the work is of substantial interest, whether they will be able to find high-quality reviewers, and whether the reviews will be valuable to the scientific community.

If they decide to proceed, and if one of the Reviewing Editors agrees to handle the submission, they initiate the labour of love that is peer review. Once the reviews have been received, the Reviewing Editor and the reviewers craft the eLife assessment, which is vetted by the Senior Editor before publication. This assessment, together with the Public Reviews, helps readers to better understand the new findings, their validity, and their relevance to the broader scientific community. If this approach were adopted more widely, it would mean that a reader could judge the work in a given paper on its own merits, irrespective of where it was published.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. eLife Editorial Leadership

    For correspondence
    editorial@elifesciences.org
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    1. Timothy E Behrens
    2. Yamini Dalal
    3. Diane M Harper
    4. Detlef Weigel
  2. eLife Senior Editors

    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    1. Olujimi A Ajijola
    2. Amy H Andreotti
    3. Sofia J Araújo
    4. Utpal Banerjee
    5. Balram Bhargava
    6. Yanchao Bi
    7. Christian Büchel
    8. Felix Campelo
    9. Albert Cardona
    10. Kathryn Cheah
    11. Lu Chen
    12. Murim Choi
    13. Laura Colgin
    14. Jonathan A Cooper
    15. Qiang Cui
    16. Floris de Lange
    17. Claude Desplan
    18. Volker Dötsch
    19. Wafik S El-Deiry
    20. Eduardo Franco
    21. Michael J Frank
    22. Wendy S Garrett
    23. Joshua I Gold
    24. Silke Hauf
    25. Christopher L-H Huang
    26. John Huguenard
    27. David E James
    28. Bavesh Kana
    29. Pankaj Kapahi
    30. Andrew J King
    31. Jürgen Kleine-Vehn
    32. Benoît Kornmann
    33. Caigang Liu
    34. Huan Luo
    35. Merritt Maduke
    36. Tamar Makin
    37. André F Marquand
    38. Adèle L Marston
    39. Pramod Mistry
    40. Alan Moses
    41. Sacha B Nelson
    42. Tony Ng
    43. Päivi Ojala
    44. George H Perry
    45. Panayiota Poirazi
    46. Lynne-Marie Postovit
    47. Sohini Ramachandran
    48. Sergio Rasmann
    49. Satyajit Rath
    50. Jonathan Roiser
    51. David Ron
    52. Carla V Rothlin
    53. John W Schoggins
    54. Meredith C Schuman
    55. Barbara G Shinn-Cunningham
    56. Dolores Shoback
    57. Lois Smith
    58. Dominique Soldati-Favre
    59. Didier Stainier
    60. Lori Sussel
    61. Kenton J Swartz
    62. Michael Taffe
    63. Tadatsugu Taniguchi
    64. K VijayRaghavan
    65. Aleksandra Walczak
    66. Kate Wassum
    67. Richard M White
    68. Ma-Li Wong
    69. Wei Yan
    70. Tony Yuen
  3. eLife Early Career Advisory Group

    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared
    1. Mayank Chugh
    2. Laura Han
    3. Sarah Marei
    4. Regina Mencia
    5. Divyansh Mittal
    6. Elizabeth Ochola
    7. Facundo Romani
    8. Lynn Yap

Publication history

  1. Version of Record published:

Copyright

© 2024, eLife Editorial Leadership et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. eLife Editorial Leadership
  2. eLife Senior Editors
  3. eLife Early Career Advisory Group
(2024)
Scientific Publishing: How and why eLife selects papers for peer review
eLife 13:e100571.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.100571