[LINK] Academic peer-review publishing .. publish first, then review online?

[Stephen Loosley]

Will Chinese scientists make or break the uprising in academic peer-review publishing?

A new publishing model is causing ructions in academia, and it could be China who decides the winner


[A battle is under way in the acedemic publishing world after a journal database delisted a well-known life sciences journal over its new publishing model. Photo: Shutterstock]


by Zhang Tongin Beijing Published: 11 Nov 2024 
https://www.scmp.com/news/china/science/article/3285814/will-chinese-scientists-make-or-break-uprising-academic-peer-review-publishing


Over the past year, a revolution has been quietly brewing in the world of academic publishing. But in the past two weeks, things have become a lot noisier.

That was when major journal database Web of Science delisted well-known life sciences journal eLife over its unique publishing model. So far, neither side has backed down.

The battle has caused a rift in academic publishing – and with many Chinese scientists now deserting eLife, it could inadvertently end up being China that decides the outcome.

Founded in 2012, eLife is a multidisciplinary biology journal that positions itself alongside leading publications such as Cell, Nature and Science. 

But in January 2023, eLife adopted a new policy: all submissions deemed suitable by the editorial board would be published and peer-reviewed in public on the eLife website, regardless of the reviewers’ recommendations.

In most journals, papers are peer reviewed first and not published if they do not pass the peer-review process. Now, eLife’s upheaval of the publishing model has redefined the standards for academic publication.

On October 23, Clarivate, the company behind Web of Science, marked eLife “on hold” on its database. According to Web of Science, eLife is being re-evaluated due to “concerns about the quality of the content published in this journal”. During this reassessment period, the database will no longer include any new articles published in the journal.

The Chinese academic community was the quickest to respond – seen most clearly through the large drop in the number of Chinese submissions.

Papers submitted to the journal from China have halved since the delisting, according to Detlef Weigel, eLife co-editor-in-chief, in a letter to Chinese neurobiologist and Capital Medical University president Rao Yi – despite contributions from Europe and North America remaining steady.

Weigel stressed that the observed drop in submission numbers was only based on a few days of data, encompassing just dozens of papers.

“We’ll need more time to determine if this trend is temporary or ongoing, and whether the average quality of submissions has changed,” he said on November 1.

The main reason behind this drop could be a fear among Chinese researchers that publishing in eLife will no longer help in their career evaluations, as new content in the journal will not be indexed while it is “on hold”.

The journal has been ranked first tier by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS), with around 12 per cent of its submissions coming from China last year, according to public data.

Some see the shift in its peer-review process, which redefines communication between authors and reviewers, as a positive step – one that encourages healthy scientific discussion.

Other Chinese journals had been considering adopting a similar publishing model.

“We had been planning to adopt this open publishing model for an environmental journal, but seeing eLife under review has made us cautious,” a Chinese publisher said, declining to be named.

Weigel criticised the move by Web of Science. He questioned the reliance on a rating system managed by a “British-American multibillion-dollar company” to define scientific value through impact factors. For China’s scientific assessment framework to depend heavily on such a system would be troubling, he said.

Under its existing publishing model, eLife does not guarantee that every submission will be accepted. Articles must pass an initial editorial screening before they reach the peer-review stage. Plus, while authors can revise their work based on feedback from reviewers, they can also dispute suggestions or withdraw their paper from publication.

“This model promotes a more transparent and robust dialogue between authors and reviewers,” one publishing insider said, declining to be named.

In the comments on a statement by Rao, another professor said they received valuable feedback through eLife’s new system.


Their submission underwent a three-month revision to meet journal standards, followed by external peer-review.

Each review cycle, including editor and peer comments, was published online and synchronised with preprint platforms, providing transparent feedback and rigorous academic discussion.

For well-established scientists, Web of Science’s metrics may be less important to their work, and eLife’s approach may help lift academic quality overall.

Rao commended eLife’s position, suggesting that the lower submission volume reflected the journal’s success in filtering out low-quality papers from China.

In an article he posted on his account, he speculated that the drop in submissions might be linked to researchers focused solely on journal ranking metrics rather than scientific value.

Such contributors, he suggested, often submitted lower-quality work and were more likely to engage in practices such as selective data presentation or even fraud.

Despite the new publishing model – and despite the delisting – eLife remains classified by CAS as a top-tier journal.



By Zhang Tong:
Tong earned his Bachelor's degree from Tianjin University and Master's degree from the University of Washington. His major was Chemical Engineering and Data Science. He used to work as an editor ..

--