The eLife Model is making an impact on research publishing. It’s more than two years since we launched the model (yes, it’s no longer “new”) – a change that has helped put the focus on what you publish rather than where.
In that time we’ve seen the appetite researchers have for a faster and fairer way to publish, where they have more control over the fate of their publication. We’ve seen that researchers appreciate the benefits of public review and eLife Assessments. And we’ve faced some challenges because our Publish, Review, Curate (PRC) publishing model doesn’t fit neatly into existing publishing infrastructure.
To lead eLife’s initiatives to transform research communication, we’ve recently appointed Timothy Behrens as Editor-in-Chief. Behrens takes the reins after a year as interim co-Editor-in-Chief alongside Detlef Weigel. We’ve also recently announced five new board members, welcoming Dinesh Natesan, from UC Santa Barbara, US; Kamran Naim, from CERN, Switzerland; Fiona Watt, from EMBO, Germany; Huda Zoghbi, from Baylor College of Medicine, Texas, US; and Krishnaswamy VijayRaghavan, from the National Centre for Biological Sciences (NCBS), India.
eLife will continue to pioneer publishing and science communication. While this year is still relatively fresh, here we reflect on the first two years of this new era for science communication.
This update includes key insights around submissions, publications and eLife Assessments, top research and author experience, and responses to eLife’s change of indexing status in Web of Science.
Unless indicated with an asterisk*, all metrics in this post are based on submissions and publications between January 31, 2023, and January 31, 2025. Where marked with an asterisk, data ends December 31, 2024.
Three insights after two years
- Over 12,000 submissions, 3,000 Reviewed Preprints and 2,000 revisions
- First reviewed publications are published 95 days (median) after submission
- Over 96% of Versions of Record (VORs) undergo at least one round of revision*
Submissions and publications
- 12,228 submissions
- 3,054 Reviewed Preprints published
- 27.3% sent for review
- 1,601 VORs
In the first two years of the eLife Model we’ve received more than 12,000 submissions from researchers in more than 50 countries, for research that has been funded by over 1,000 funding organisations. eLife is a broad, multidisciplinary journal and top subject areas for submissions include Neuroscience, Cell Biology, Microbiology and Infectious Disease, Genetics and Genomics, and Immunology and Inflammation.
Around 27% of submissions are selected for review. How and why eLife selects papers for review is explained in an Editorial by eLife Editorial Leadership, Senior Editors and our Early-Career Advisory Group.
As of January 31, we have published 1,601 VORs. Over 96% of these VORs were published after at least one round of revisions.
Faster reviewed publications
- 95 days from submission to first Reviewed Preprint
- 8 days decline to review (median days)
The eLife Model makes reviewed and assessed research available faster. You can expect your first version to be published in around 3 months from submission. Speed doesn’t need to mean rushed, it’s faster because your work is published together with the reviews and assessment ahead of your revisions. Beyond that, you’ll get all the things you’d expect from a typical published article. Your first version will be citable, shareable, and indexed in Google Scholar, Scopus and Open Alex. It is published together with public reviews and an eLife Assessment, helping readers understand the strengths and limitations of your paper.
We’ve also seen that researchers typically revise their work before publishing the VOR. From submission to final VOR takes, on average, 279 days.
eLife Assessments and revisions
*Analysis of eLife Assessments and revisions considers papers published between January 31, 2023, and December 31, 2024. Sample of 1,291 eLife Model VORs, papers with multiple terms excluded
Between first version and VOR:
- Strength of evidence improved in 39.4% of papers
- Significance of findings remained the same in 78.2% of papers
eLife Assessments are the curation step of eLife’s PRC process. They evaluate articles according to the strength of evidence and the significance of the findings. This article-level evaluation removes the need for journal-level metrics to be used as a proxy.
Between first version Reviewed Preprints and VORs, strength of evidence improved in 39.4% of papers. This was even more pronounced in papers where evidence was initially described as ‘incomplete’ – improving in 76.5% of papers to ‘solid’ or better before publishing the VOR. The majority of authors (96%) revised their papers before publishing the VOR. In papers originally described as ‘solid’, strength of evidence improved to ‘convincing’ or better in 49.3% of papers.
Significance of the findings was most frequently described as ‘important’ (49.0%) and ‘valuable’ (31.1%) in VORs. After revision, significance remained the same in 78.2% of cases. That significance after review is fairly stable after revisions could mean that the significance of research findings is more ingrained once the initial study is complete and could even be determined to some degree at the research question stage.
Demonstrating the value of peer review, how useful feedback and additional work can help uplift a paper, the editors of this paper on ageing and senescence changed their assessment of the strength of evidence from ‘incomplete’ to ‘compelling’ following revisions by the authors.
High-quality, impactful research
eLife continues to publish research that makes a difference. We’ve published several ’landmark’ papers, indicating findings likely to have profound implications for their field and widespread influence. And our eLife Assessments also recognise where researchers have shown exemplary use of existing approaches and set new standards for their field.
Significance of findings: ‘Landmark’
- Structural analysis of the dynamic ribosome-translocon complex
- Purine nucleosides replace cAMP in allosteric regulation of PKA in trypanosomatid pathogens
- Unanticipated mechanisms of covalent inhibitor and synthetic ligand cobinding to PPARγ
Strength of evidence: ‘Exceptional’
- Genetic basis of Arabidopsis thaliana responses to infection by naïve and adapted isolates of turnip mosaic virus
- PKCδ is an activator of neuronal mitochondrial metabolism that mediates the spacing effect on memory consolidation
- Unbiased identification of cell identity in dense mixed neural cultures
- The first complete 3D reconstruction and morphofunctional mapping of an insect eye
Author experience
We’ve spoken to authors about their experiences publishing in the eLife Model and heard first hand what difference it made for them.
“authors have a lot of control in the publication process”
– Meike van der Heijden, Assistant Professor at the Fralin Biomedical Research Institute at Virginia Tech Carilion and School of Neuroscience at Virginia Tech.
“an open ‘conversation’… without the threat of rejection”
– Patrick Allard, Professor in the Division of Life Sciences at UCLA.
"smooth, fair, and transparent"
– Ushio Masayuki, Assistant Professor at the Department of Ocean Science at the Hong Kong University of Science and Technology (HKUST).
“[you can] make positive impacts by contributing to such nourishing culture”
– Hironori Funabiki
“innovative and intriguing”
– Chunxiao Li
Funding for publishing in eLife
In addition to the many authors who have opted for eLife, the research and the publications have been made possible by a wide range of funders around the world. The depth and range of funders that pay for our authors’ publications in eLife is both substantial and global (funders for eLife Model VORs are available to view here). The top funders by volume are National Institutes of Health, Chinese Academy of Sciences, National Science Foundation, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Wellcome, European Research Council and Howard Hughes Medical Institute. But this is a global endeavour. In the last two years we have published research funded by more than 1,000 uniquely identified organisations in more than 50 countries.
Changes to eLife’s indexing status
The eLife Model is designed to meet today’s research needs and reflect how scientific discourse really works, not simply to fit into existing publishing infrastructure. As a result of eLife not giving an accept–reject decision after peer review, eLife was moved to the Scopus preprints index and the Web of Science Emerging Sources Citation Index – a result of which is that eLife will no longer receive a Journal Impact Factor(™).
Since this news we have seen the quality of our submissions remain high. Early data from 2025 suggests some positive signs but it’s too early to draw any conclusions. We have also been overwhelmed by support from researchers and the research community. We will continue to work and engage with institutions, funders and the wider scientific community and will share more in the coming months.
Momentum in Publish, Review, Curate
We are also pleased to see that there is wider growth and interest in PRC publishing models. We’ve seen plenty of ink spilled in the last few months discussing how PRC is best understood and how PRC challenges the entrenched power structures of research publishing. We’ve also seen the launch of MetaROR, a new PRC journal for research on research.
What’s next for the eLife Model?
Researchers and funders see the value in what we’re doing. The breadth of support from both authors and funding bodies – as well as the many more researchers who choose to submit to eLife – shows the demand for transparent and accountable research publishing and assessment.
eLife will continue to promote the benefits of PRC publishing models this year and beyond. We will continue to build a system that serves authors, reviewers and readers. And we will continue to advocate against journal-level metrics, in favour of more nuanced and meaningful research assessment.
From Fiona Hutton, eLife Head of Publishing:
“At eLife, peer review is no longer a threshold to be feared. Its purpose is in informing nuanced and public evaluation of research and in helping you make your research the best it can be. You’re in control of your publishing journey.
“Rather than an opaque system where most research is published somewhere eventually and you waste precious time shopping around, all reviewed research in eLife is published together with public reviews and eLife Assessments. This highlights individual strengths of your research, its limitations, and where improvements can be made. It addresses the reality that publication alone is a poor means of validation and journal-level metrics say nothing about your work.
“Scientific progress is a collaborative endeavour. Our model, and the growing body of research published with it, demonstrates the value and merit of a system that prioritises scientific discourse over vanity metrics and status symbols.
“Together we are building a publishing system that truly serves science.”
