Who and why do researchers opt to publish in post-publication peer review platforms? - findings from a review and survey of F1000 Research

Abstract

Background:  Preprint servers and alternative publication platforms enable authors to accelerate the dissemination of their research.  In recent years there has been an exponential increase in the use of such servers and platforms in the biomedical sciences, although little is known about who, why and what experiences researchers have with publishing on such platforms.  In this article we explore one of these alternative publication platforms, F1000 Research, which offers immediate publication followed by post-publication peer review.  Methods: From an unselected cohort of articles published between 13th July 2012 and 30th November 2017 in F1000 Research, we provided a summary of who and what was published on this platform and calculated the percentage of published articles that had been indexed on a bibliographic database (PubMed) following successful post-publication peer review.  We also surveyed corresponding authors to further understand the rationale and experiences of those that have published using this platform.       Results: A total of 1865 articles had been published in the study cohort period, of which 80% (n=1488) had successfully undergone peer review and were indexed on PubMed within a minimum period of six months since first publication. Nearly three-quarters of articles passed the peer review process with their initial submission.  Survey responses were received from 296 corresponding authors. Open access, open peer review and the speed of publication were the three main reasons why authors opted to publish with F1000 Research.     Conclusions: Many who published with F1000 Research had a positive experience and indicated that they would publish again with this same platform in the future.  Nevertheless, there remained some concerns about the peer review process and the quality of the articles that were published.