We spoke with Patrick Allard, Professor in the Division of Life Sciences at University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA), to find out about his and his author team’s experience of publishing in our model. Thanks for sharing your experience, Patrick!
Can you tell us about your paper?
In the context of increasing legalisation of cannabis-based products, we wanted to answer an important question: does the main psychoactive ingredient of cannabis, Δ9-THC, affect the earliest stages of life and in particular the early stages of germ cell development? Gaining a better understanding of the sensitivity of early germ cells to environmental exposures is critical to safeguard the integrity of the reproductive process and the health of the next generations.
To dissect the impact of THC this early during development, we employed a stem-cell based differentiation model that captures the transition from embryonic stem cells to Epiblast-like Cells and finally to Primordial Germ Cell-like Cells. In the article, we describe 4 key findings: (1) We found that Δ9-THC acts on Embryonic Stem Cells (ESCs) primarily via the cannabinoid receptor CB1. (2) Its binding alters the metabolism of ESCs, boosting their glycolysis which promotes their proliferation. (3) Unfortunately, the observed metabolic rewiring is retained even after removal of all THC and the stepwise differentiation of these ESCs into Primordial Germ Cells-Like Cells. (4) These in vitro generated Primordial Germ Cells show a significantly altered transcriptional profile suggestive of a decrease in their quality.
we liked the idea of having an open "conversation" with the reviewers...without the threat of rejection.
Why did you choose to submit this paper to the eLife model?
Although there was some uncertainty regarding the impact of the new eLife model, we nonetheless submitted our article through this model for several reasons.
First and foremost, we felt that, new model or not, this was still eLife which is well perceived by the scientific community.
Second was the question of fit and since eLife was running a special issue on Reproductive Health, it seemed a good opportunity to submit.
The third reason was more specific to eLife’s model: we liked the idea of having an open “conversation” with the reviewers during the process and having the chance to polish the manuscript by following the editors and reviewers’ recommendations without the threat of rejection (as long as it passed the editorial screening).
We enjoyed it a lot. We found both public and private comments to be constructive and respectful.
How did you find eLife's publishing process?
We enjoyed it a lot. We found both public and private comments to be constructive and respectful, truly focused on what would improve the strength of the experimental evidence and the significance of our results.
The speed of the process was comparable to other journals, about two months from the day of submission to receiving the first round of reviews and six months from submission to the publication of the Version of Record.
Did you have any reservations about submitting through our model and how did these aspects turn out?
We had some reservations because of the novelty of the publication model, not knowing how this would translate in the review of the manuscript and how this would impact the perception of our work’s quality.
It is too early to tell based purely on quantitative data such as citation number, but the work was well received when shared across media platforms, helped by eLife’s visibility as a journal.
eLife feels like a journal built by the research community to truly serve the research community.
Why did you choose to revise your paper, resubmit and then declare it a Version of Record at eLife?
We were encouraged by the constructive and overall positive public and private comments received. Thus, we decided to address them all when re-submitting which improved eLife’s overall assessment of the strength of the evidence and its significance. We knew that, after that, the revised version should logically be declared the Version of Record.
Do you have any advice for people who are unsure about the eLife model?
Try it! You will find the reviews to be more constructive and positive than through traditional publication channels.
I think this is for two reasons. First, although the reviewers are not named, their comments are visible to all. Second, since the manuscript has already gone through editorial screening, the reviewers' task then shifts to focusing on improving the work.
Your work will also benefit from its rapid availability online since it will be published first as a Reviewed Preprint before the chance for it to be revised and published as the Version of Record.
What do you think about the current publishing and research landscape?
Our evaluation of research quality and productivity is heavily centred on the publication of our research in highly selective journals that gatekeep most research while dramatically increasing their fees over the last few years, generating billions in annual revenue for the publishing companies. Yet these journals rely heavily on the free work produced by authors and reviewers and the process is far from transparent.
Although publishing with eLife is not free, it is reasonable and a fee waiver can be requested. The publication process is largely transparent as we found the public and private comments to be very similar, with the private comments containing more details in the recommendations. eLife feels like a journal built by the research community to truly serve the research community.
What are other eLife authors saying?
“In this new process of publishing, authors have significant autonomy over their papers. The entire publication and review process are more transparent.” – Chunxiao Li
Read more about Chunxiao’s experience publishing with eLife.
“... the review and publication process with eLife was smooth, fair, and transparent.” – Ushio Masayuki
Read more about Ushio’s experience publishing with eLife.
“It was certainly the most pleasant and constructive peer review process I have experienced so far.” – Rebecca Jordan
Read more about Rebecca’s experience publishing with eLife.
Patrick Allard bio:
Patrick Allard is a Professor in the Division of Life Sciences at UCLA. Dr. Allard received his BSc from University of Toulouse, France, and his MSc in Biology of Aging from University of Paris. He then completed his PhD in Biology from McGill University, Canada, and his postdoctoral fellowship position in the Department of Genetics at Harvard Medical School, before joining UCLA as faculty. Dr. Allard’s work resides at the intersection of genetics, epigenetics, developmental biology and environmental health. Specifically, his laboratory leverages model organism and stem cell-based approaches to examine the molecular mechanisms of epigenetic memory of environmental exposures.
