eLife digital publication

ORIGINAL: http://elife.elifesciences.org/about-the-journal

eLife is a researcher-led, open access digital publication for outstanding research in life science and biomedicine.

The eLife journal is a platform to maximise the reach and influence of new findings and a showcase for new approaches to the presentation, evaluation and use of research.

eLife is a collaboration between the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Max Planck Society, the Wellcome Trust, and over 200 of the world’s most talented biomedical scientists.

We aim to make eLife the first choice journal for all researchers, in particular for early-career researchers. It’s important that early experiences of publishing are constructive and fair. eLife is a publishing venue to advance careers in science; the editors act decisively and provide a swift, fair and supportive author experience; and we maximise the potential exposure for all published works.

At eLife, our goal is to accelerate scientific advancement by making new research available quickly, openly, and in a way that helps others to build upon it. We make data more accessible and more useable. We aim to create a broader audience for important discoveries, and to track and report the impact of published articles – on research, and on society as a whole.

Review Process

eLife returns decisions on important papers quickly. Our peer-review process is rigorous, but decisive, constructive, and fast.

At eLife, we’ve taken a fresh approach to peer review to save you time, and to provide clear direction and constructive input.

• Decisions are quick and efficient
• Revision requests are designed to be clear and manageable
• Multiple rounds of revision are usually avoided

Here's how it works

Submissions are evaluated by a team of academic editors who are active and respected researchers, who have expertise across disciplines, and who are committed to assessing submissions efficiently and fairly. Our approach focuses on delivering the highest level of service to authors and saving time along the way.

Initial decisions are delivered quickly

Our Senior Editors decide whether initial submissions are appropriate for in-depth peer review, usually in consultation with members of the Board of Reviewing Editors. We ask for the research article in a single PDF along with a cover letter. Only once editors commit to full review are authors asked to provide additional information and files to support the peer-review process. We aim to return initial decisions within three to five days. 

Active scientists make all decisions
A Senior editor assigns a member of the Board of Reviewing Editors to oversee the peer-review process. The Reviewing editor usually reviews the article him or herself, calling on one or two additional reviewers as needed.

Revision requests are consolidated
Reviewers get together online to discuss their recommendations, communicating openly with one another before a decision is reached, refining their feedback, and striving to provide clear and concise guidance. If the work needs essential revisions before it can be published, the Reviewing editor incorporates those requirements into a single set of instructions. We aim to deliver decisions after peer review within a month of receiving the full submission.

Limited rounds of revision
Further rounds of revision are largely eliminated, as the Reviewing editor is able to assess most revised submissions without further outside review.

Decisions and responses are available for all to read
We include the most substantive parts of the decision letter after review and the associated author responses alongside published articles, subject to author agreement, so that readers can assess and comment on the review process too.