Magdalena Solyga of the Friedrich Miescher Institute for Biomedical Research in Basel, Switzerland, talks to us about her research and reasons for choosing eLife.
Could you tell us a little about yourself and your eLife article?
I am a neuroscientist fascinated by the remarkable ways our auditory system helps us navigate the world. My research focuses on how the brain integrates input from multiple senses and responds to unexpected events. Previous research has shown that the visual cortex generates signals called “prediction errors” when there is a difference between what the brain expects to happen and what really happens. That made me wonder: does the auditory cortex work in the same way?
To explore this question, Georg Keller and I developed a virtual environment in which mice ran through a dark tunnel while exposed to a sound, with the amplitude of this sound being coupled to their running speed. We then switched off the sound at random times, and used a technique called two-photon calcium imaging to observe how neurons in the auditory cortex responded to this perturbation. We also did experiments in which mice running speed was coupled both to sound loudness and the speed of visual flow to test if prediction errors of different modalities interact.
We found that the auditory cortex responded to disruptions in a way that was similar to how the visual cortex responds. Moreover, we observed interactions between the auditory and visual prediction error responses. You can find out more in our eLife article: Multimodal mismatch responses in mouse auditory cortex.
It felt just as rigorous as traditional peer review –but without the gatekeeping, delays, or pressure to reshape the work around overly broad reviewer demands.
Why did you submit this paper to the eLife Model? How did you find the process?
We chose to submit our paper to the eLife Model because we believe the future of science lies in greater transparency and open access –without compromising on the quality of peer review. The publishing process was very smooth, and we truly appreciated the freedom it offered alongside the depth of discussion with the reviewers. What pleasantly surprised us was that, even though the model allows authors to choose which comments to address, the review process still involved multiple rounds of thoughtful and constructive feedback. It felt just as rigorous as traditional peer review –but without the gatekeeping, delays, or pressure to reshape the work around overly broad reviewer demands.
we were not pressured to chase down entirely new questions or add data that go well beyond the original scope of the work
Did you have any reservations about the eLife Model?
Stepping away from high-impact journals can feel risky, especially when so many academic metrics still rely on them. But what ultimately drew us to eLife was its focus on constructive, transparent, and timely peer review, without the prolonged delays that often hinder the publishing process. In the end, the experience was collaborative and efficient, and our work was well received within our field –which showed us that it reached the audience we were hoping for.
“Once your paper is accepted for review, you're guaranteed to receive constructive, thoughtful feedback.”
How did you find the peer-review process and what did you think about the eLife Assessment?
It closely resembled the traditional review process in terms of depth and rigor, but with the added freedom to focus on feedback that truly strengthens the core message of the paper. Unlike in many conventional reviews, we were not pressured to chase down entirely new questions or add data that go well beyond the original scope of the work –something that often dilutes the clarity of a study. At the same time, the public nature of the reviews means that readers can see how other experts evaluated the evidence and the paper’s claims, adding a valuable layer of openness and accountability. I also appreciated the structured eLife Assessment, which clearly summarizes the importance of the findings and the strength of the supporting evidence –making it easier for the broader community to quickly grasp the impact and limitations of the work.
Do you have any advice for researchers who are unsure about eLife’s Model?
Unlike traditional publishing, this model doesn’t leave your work waiting for months only to end in rejection. Once your paper is accepted for review, you're guaranteed to receive constructive, thoughtful feedback. It accelerates the sharing of results and helps keep your research moving forward. The required preprint submission also ensures that your work is immediately accessible to the scientific community, fostering a more open and collaborative approach to science. We can only hope that, moving forward, academic metrics will evolve to recognize and value publications from progressive models like eLife.
What are the wider implications of your research?
Our findings suggest that the brain may use a common way to calculate sensorimotor prediction errors across different sensory modalities –both visual and auditory. This points to a shared computational principle in how the cortex operates. Additionally, the fact that mismatches from different senses can amplify each other hints at a broader network in the brain that not only detects these errors but also integrates and distributes them across modalities. This could be a key mechanism for how the brain maintains an adaptive model of the world.
What are your avenues for future study?
This opens up a whole set of exciting questions. The circuit mechanisms underlying this type of multimodal integration in mismatch responses are still not well understood and will require deeper investigation. While we know that these responses are potentiated when multiple sensory mismatches occur together, we do not yet know why or how this amplification is achieved at the neural level. There is also a strong potential to translate some of these findings to human studies, which could offer valuable insights into how the brain integrates sensory predictions in more naturalistic settings.
What do you think about the current approach to science publishing and the research landscape?
The current system still places too much emphasis on journal prestige and impact factors, which can make it especially difficult for early-career researchers or those entering new fields to gain visibility. More open, transparent, and constructive publishing models are a step in the right direction to reduce these biases.
Thank you for taking the time to speak with us, Magdalena!
What are other eLife authors saying?
“The pragmatic reason [for choosing eLife] is that funding for this project was essentially at an end. The referee mindset of demanding more and more has spread to journals at almost all levels of perceived importance…”
– Mark Boothby
“This model has many benefits in my mind. But one of the biggest advantages is that the authors have a lot of control in the publication process.”
“... we liked the idea of having an open ‘conversation’ with the reviewers...without the threat of rejection.”
Want to learn more about eLife’s publishing model?
What is a Reviewed Preprint?
What is an eLife Assessment?
What happens after you submit your research?
Author bio
Magdalena Sołyga is a postdoctoral fellow at the Friedrich Miescher Institute for Biomedical Research (FMI) in Basel, Switzerland, working in the laboratory of Dr. Georg Keller. She earned her PhD from the University of Basel in June 2021, where she conducted research under the supervision of Prof. Tania Barkat in the Brain & Sound Lab. Dr. Sołyga's research focuses on auditory neuroscience, particularly the neural mechanisms underlying auditory processing and sensorimotor integration. She has investigated cortical offset responses in sound termination detection, highlighting their significance in auditory perception. Her recent work includes studying multimodal mismatch responses in mouse auditory cortex, exploring how prediction errors in one sensory modality influence computations in another.
