# data[].attributes.body
Open-access publishing platform using post-publication review

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Testimonials

To see a paper in five days, in a professional layout, is quite astounding. Two useful peer review reports appeared in less than two weeks.

Jurgen Schnermann
NIDDK/NIH
Bethesda, USA

F1000Research has allowed us to make valuable data available to the broader scientific community. Having specific channels for Bioconductor has made me recommend this venue for Bioconductor workflows and exemplary data analyses.

Susan Holmes
Department of Statistics
Stanford University
California, USA

When reviewers comment openly on a paper that is already published, they suddenly become more constructive and helpful.

Etienne Joly
IPBS, CNRS
Université de Toulouse
Toulouse, France

Why you should publish with us

Benefits for Researchers

Enables authors, not editors, to decide what they wish to publish.

Authors suggest peer reviewers and control the process.

All types of research can be published rapidly: traditional articles, data sets, null results, protocols, case reports, incremental findings and more.

Benefits for Research

Aims to shift the way research and researchers are evaluated.

Moves away from journal-based measures towards direct assessment of individual outputs.

Supports research assessment based on the intrinsic value of the research, not the venue of publication.

Benefits for Society

Reduces the barrier to collaborative research through data sharing, transparency and attribution.

Reduces research waste and helps to remove the bias in our understanding of research.

Enables others to build upon new ideas right away, wherever and whoever they are.

Our Gateways

Gateways provide personalized portals for institutions or organizations, with links to other resources.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
F1000Research | Open Access Publishing Platform | Beyond a Research Journal

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
To see a paper in five days, in a professional layout, is quite astounding. Two useful peer review reports appeared in less than two weeks. Jurgen Schnermann NIDDK/NIH Bethesda, USA F1000Research has allowed us to make valuable data available to the broader scientific community.

# data[].attributes.headline
How scientific publishing could look like in the future

# data[].attributes.subject
How scientific publishing could look like in the future

# data[].attributes.body
Article by the neuroscientist Dr. Romain Brette

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In 2016, the academic publication system worked mostly as follows :

1. Scientists do some research and write a paper about it to share their findings with the world.

2. The paper is submitted to a journal, chosen for its prestige.

3. The editor, possibly a professional editor (ie not a professional scientist), judges that the paper is not worth of review: go back to (2).

4. The editor sends the paper to 2-3 reviewers, asking them to review the paper quickly (the more prestigious, the quicker). Reviewers are chosen based on the editor's expertise and network.

5. Reviewers have too many reviews to write already: go back to (4).

6. The reviewers (or one reviewer) find the paper uninteresting, or bad, or they "don't believe it": go back to (2).

7. The reviews are mixed: a third reviewer is asked; go back to (4).

8. The reviewers find the paper interesting enough but have requests for the authors; they should entirely rewrite their paper; they should do new experiments; they should cite the reviewers; they should remove an uninteresting figure; they should add some discussion points.

9. After some work, the authors submit a revised paper.

10. Actually, reviewers didn't think the paper was that interesting anyway: go back to (2).

11. The reviewers have more requests: go back to (9).

12. The paper is accepted: congratulations!

13. The format of references does not follow the journal's style: please rewrite the reference list.

14. The author's paper now belongs to Elsevier/Springer Nature/etc. It will be sold by the publisher to academic institutions, with a margin of 30-40%.

15. (recent alternative option) The authors pay publication fees of about $2000. The paper is now freely accessible.

16. A knowledgeable reader disagrees with the main conclusion of the paper: she writes a letter to the editor.

17. After careful consideration, the letter is rejected.

18. Another reader, not an expert of the field, reads the paper in a prestigious journal and believes it is highly regarded in the community, until she talks with colleagues and finds out that the paper is very criticized.

19. The prestigious paper is commented in mainstream journals. Experts rant about the journalists.

20. The first author applies for a position. The committee examines CVs of all candidates and selects those with publications in prestigious journals. The senior author sends an excellent letter of recommendation. The committee values it if the senior author is famous.

21. The senior author applies for a grant. The committee selects candidates with a good "track record", ie prestigious publications.

This publication model is wasteful, full of perverse incentives, opaque, and misleading. What I want to do here is not one more critique of this system, but rather give a vision of what the publication system could be and, in my opinion, will be, perhaps within a decade. This is a vision of a publication system centered on individual articles, rather than on journals. It is made possible today by information technology (aka "the internet"). What stands in its way is, in a word: conservatism. It works as follows:

1. Scientists do some research and write a paper about it to share their findings with the world.

2. The paper is uploaded to an archive site, together with the data. All is freely accessible to anyone.

3. The authors invite an unlimited number of professional scientists (say, authors of at least one paper) to write a formal, signed, review. The reviews are public.

4. Any other scientist can contribute a signed or anonymous review or comment, including comments on the public reviews (aka "scientific debate").

5. Authors respond to the reviews and may submit a revised version.

6. Authors decide when to stop the revision process; reviewers express their satisfaction, or not.

7. Any scientist can recommend the paper if she finds it worth reading. Tools are made available to search for papers, possibly using the number of recommendations, possibly weighted by scientist reputation (all data are freely accessible and third parties provide searching tools).

8. A knowledgeable reader disagrees with the main conclusion of the paper: she writes a public critique, signed or anonymous, after reexamining the paper's raw data. The authors respond publicly.

9. Another reader, not an expert of the field, reads the paper. She notices that many knowledgeable scientists disagree with the conclusions and can read the detailed arguments and the authors' response.

10. The first author applies for a position. For every publication, the committee reads the reaction of the community (formal reviews, comments, recommendations) and uses it to evaluate the value of the work along all the dimensions addressed in the reactions (importance, originality, technicality, etc). The committee also asks the candidate what her main contributions are in her view and why. The candidate can point to published reactions to her work that support her claims.

11. The senior author applies for a grant or a promotion. The committee reads the reaction of the community to the candidate's previous work. They might also look at review invitations and reviewing activity.

In the post-journal world, a paper is submitted a single time (but of course it can be revised), and in contrast with the journal model, the reaction of the community is known. As a consequence, quality stamps (journal names) are obsolete. No review is thrown away. As a consequence, scientists save time on both submitting and reviewing. Scientists are not incentivized to make grand claims. In addition, the system saves several billions of dollars each year (eg US libraries spend $2 billion each year on subscriptions), not counting the time saved on wasted reviews and submissions.

All of this is clearly possible with today's technology. The next question I will try to address is: how to move quickly to the post-journal world?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In 2016, the academic publication system worked mostly as follows : Scientists do some research and write a paper about it to share their findings with the world. The paper is submitted to a journal, chosen for its prestige.

# data[].attributes.body
Documentary movie about the scientific publishing industry

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Paywall: The Business of Scholarship is a documentary which focuses on the need for open access to research and science. The film questions the rationale behind the $25.2 billion a year that flows into for-profit academic publishers, examines the 35-40% profit margin associated with the top academic publisher, Elsevier, and looks at how that profit margin is often greater than some of the most profitable tech companies such as Apple, Facebook,
and Google.

Staying true to the open access model, the film is free to stream and download, for private or public use, and maintains the most open CC BY 4.0 Creative Commons designation to ensure anyone regardless of their social, financial, or political background will have access.

If you are interested in screening this film at your university, please fill out our contact form.

Should you wish to support the Open Access movement, you might consider donating to organizations who are leading the charge for Open Access, including , , and SPARC Europe. For a comprehensive list of organizations working in the Open Access space, visit the Open Access Directory.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Producer/Director Jason Schmitt highlights the current climate of scholarship in this anticipated documentary production focusing on the business of research and scholarship. Traveling the world to document the current scholarship climate, Schmitt and his video crew find unexpected twists to the publish or perish mindset of academics, scholarship, and philanthropy.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Academic writing -- Peer feedback has 191 members. Use this group to ask peers for feedback on your academic texts and to search for partner(s) for regular feedbacking. (This group is NOT for...

# data[].attributes.body
Facebook group for all questions related to scientific publishing

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Looking for the best journal match for your paper?
Search the world's leading source of academic journals using your abstract or your keywords and other details.
More on how it works

All content on this website: Copyright © 2023 Elsevier B.V. or its licensors or contributors. All rights (including all rights for TDM, AI training, and similar technologies) are reserved. For all Open Access content, the Creative Commons licensing terms apply.
Cookies are used by this site. To decline or learn more, visit our Cookie settings.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Elsevier Journal Finder helps you find journals that could be best suited for publishing your scientific article. Journal Finder uses smart search technology and field-of-research specific vocabularies to match your paper's abstract to scientific journals.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
The hardest thing for most people, when it comes to building habits, is sticking to it long enough for it to become ingrained.

Duh, Leo.

It's why most people don't exercise or eat healthy, why people procrastinate or have clutter or debt, why people smoke and drink soda, why people don't meditate or learn new languages or write everyday or read more books.

Simply put: if you can learn to stick to a habit, you can do almost anything. I'm a good example of that.

So how do you stick to a habit? I'm going to make this as simple as possible - let's dive in.

Why You Don't Stick to a Habit

The most common reasons people don't stick to a habit:

1. Habit is too difficult.

2. You don't enjoy doing it.

3. Too many habits at once (habits are hard!).

4. Too many other things going on.

5. Changes in routine (sick, travel, visitors, big project at work).

6. Not really motivated to do it.

7. You talk yourself out of it.

8. You miss a day or two and get discouraged.

There are other reasons too: people actively discourage you from changing, or you think negative thoughts about your ability to change, or you overdo it in the beginning and then run out of enthusiasm.

The Rules for Sticking to a Habit

Now that we know all that we're up against, it seems pretty tough, no? Actually, it's not easy, but it's definitely doable. Anything worth doing is going to take some work. You just need to set your mind to doing something tough, and be OK with a little discomfort.

That said, I have a set of rules to follow if you want to actually stick to new habits. Now, you can ignore these rules, as most people do, and increase your likelihood of failure. Or you can try the rules, and see if they work for you (each person is different, so you have to figure out your own formula).

Here are the rules:

1. One Habit at a Time. This is incredibly important - most people ignore it because they underestimate how much focus it takes to actually stick to a new habit. It's easy to start a habit, or even 5 of them at once. Sticking to them is another story. Please note that this is one habit period - don't think you can do one fitness habit, one social habit, one work habit, etc. One habit only. Do not break this rule.

2. A Tiny Habit. Do not focus on results as you're forming the habit. I recently mentioned that I'm doing 3 yoga poses every morning - doing more than an hour is too difficult for me and I tend to quit when I do long classes. Will I get a good workout with only 3 yoga poses? No! I'm not trying to get a good workout, get flexible, become more mindful, or get in shape. Eventually, yes, those results will probably come. But for now, I'm only doing one thing: forming the habit of doing yoga each day. Make the habit as tiny as possible. Whatever you think you should do, cut it in half. Then, if possible, cut it in half again. Maybe once more if your time to do it is longer than 2 minutes.

3. Once a Day. You might think you can change your entire diet all at once. Not bloody likely. Only do the habit once a day, and again, just for a minute or two each day. Once the habit is ingrained, you can expand, but wait at least 3 weeks before you even consider that.

4. Focus on Starting. The only thing you need to do is start. That's the part of the habit that matters in the first month or so. Later on, you'll run a marathon. For now, just put all your effort into lacing up your shoes and getting out the door. If you're meditating, just get your butt on the cushion. If you're eating healthy, just get your healthy snack (carrots & hummus?) in front of you, and take the first bite. If you're writing, just close your browser, open a text document, and type the first sentence. Just start.

5. Enjoy Doing It. It's really important that you get positive feedback for doing the habit, right away. Many people do a habit they hate, which is built-in negative feedback, and then wonder why they can't stick to it. Do a habit you love, or find a way to enjoy doing the habit. Focus on the positive aspects of it. Also, as my friend Tynan does, praise yourself for doing it. Feel good about doing it. This is immediate reward, and it's necessary.

6. Watch Your Thoughts. If you start to avoid the habit, or do the habit but feel discouraged, or ever feel like quitting ... pay attention to these thoughts. Where are they coming from? Are you rationalizing quitting? Are you giving yourself some negative self-talk? Those thoughts aren't real - they're just defense mechanisms your brain uses to avoid discomfort. Let them go, and don't let them have power over you. You can beat them with some positive self-talk.

7. Don't Miss Two Straight Days. This is the key. If you let yourself miss a day, be absolutely sure, incredibly and powerfully sure, that you don't miss a day again. Miss a day, and let all kinds of alarms go off: you should put yourself on emergency status and do everything possible to not miss the 2nd day. Tynan suggests doubling down, but whatever you do, don't let yourself slip up again. If you do, you are never going to get good at habits. Don't do it.

8. Be accountable. Tell at least one other person about your habit change, and ask them to keep you accountable. A group of 4-5 people is even better (as in my Sea Change Program). It increases your likelihood of sticking to the habit by about 50% in my experience.

How to Learn the Habit Skill

That might all seem like a lot to learn at once. That's OK. We're going to learn it simply and easily. Here's how:

Do the easiest possible habit when you first start.

If you're not good at habits yet (and if you're reading this guide, you probably aren't), then start with the most basic skills - don't try to do ninja habit skills yet.

You want to practice the habit rules by doing something crazily easy. It will seem a little ridiculous, but spend a little time doing something ridiculous if you really want to be good at it.

Some ideas for habits to start with:

Drink a glass of water each day.

Put your clothes in your hamper.

Wash your bowl when you're done.

Say thank you every morning.

Drink tea each afternoon.

Eat one piece of fruit.

Write one sentence a day.

Floss one tooth.

Too easy? Try something harder, and if you fail, then promise me you'll try one of these.

Need Help?

If you need some help with forming habits, consider joining my Sea Change Program. I'll give you the accountability and reminders you need, along with some guidance each month, and you can form new habits along with everyone else in the program.

The Sea Change Program for forming habits.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Sticking to a Habit: The Definitive Guide - zen habits

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
By Leo Babauta The hardest thing for most people, when it comes to building habits, is sticking to it long enough for it to become ingrained. Duh, Leo. It's why most people don't exercise or eat healthy, why people procrastinate or have clutter or debt, why people smoke and drink soda, why people don't meditate [...]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This extension reminds you to take a break from work.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Ten Simple Rules for a Computational Biologist’s Laboratory Notebook

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Citation: Schnell S (2015) Ten Simple Rules for a Computational Biologist’s Laboratory Notebook. PLoS Comput Biol 11(9): e1004385. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1004385

# data[].attributes.body
Browser app for freewriting

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The Most Dangerous Writing App. If you stop typing, all progress will be lost. Now with over 500+ writing prompts to choose from.