Home
FAQs
faqs
FAQs
General Questions
What are the advantages of publishing in NIHR Open Research?
NIHR Open Research is a publishing option for researchers affiliated or funded/co-funded by the NIHR. There are several benefits to researchers who choose to publish on this new platform:
- Authors, not editors, choose what they wish to publish.
- Rapid publication allows the sharing of new findings without any delay.
- The opportunity to publish a wide range of outputs, including standard research articles, data sets, new insights and confirmatory or negative results.
- Authors, not editors, choose what they wish to publish.
- Authors can choose reviewers most appropriate to their subject whose opinions they value, and can cite the open review comments that vouch for the quality of their work.
- The inclusion of citation to all supporting non-sensitive data facilitates reanalysis, replication and reuse and thus improves visibility and reproducibility.
Who controls NIHR Open Research?
The publishing platform is operated on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care and will use technology provided by F1000Research.
How does NIHR Open Research benefit early career researchers?
There are many benefits for early career researchers (ECRs) publishing on this platform, compared with publishing in journals:
- Open science publishing increases visibility and maximizes the societal impact of the research.
- The removal of any barriers to getting an article accepted by a journal (where drivers to retain journal prestige can restrict what is accepted for publication).
- Accelerating the speed of publication and the ability to share findings and data, coupled with open peer review, allows researchers to quickly disseminate work for the application of their next position and/or grant.
- PhD projects often produce negative/null findings that are typically hard to publish – this platform enables ECRs to share this work and build up an adequate publication record for their next position, irrespective of the final outcome of their project.
- Open peer review enables ECRs to start an open and constructive dialogue with other experts in the field and build potentially important new connections and networks, who might become future collaborators or provide opportunities for future career options.
How will the NIHR evaluate the outputs of its grantees who publish on NIHR Open Research?
The NIHR supports initiatives that encourage direct evaluation of research, allowing all outputs to be judged on their own merit regardless of the publication venue. NIHR Open Research is fully embedded in the established scholarly publication framework, ensuring that output meets all international publishing standards. Article-level metrics (e.g. citations, views, downloads, altmetrics) will enable direct evaluation of the research output itself, and reinforce initiatives to improve the evidence base on which researchers are evaluated.
Does NIHR Open Research have an Impact Factor?
NIHR Open Research will not have an Impact Factor. An increasing number of funders and institutions strongly support a move away from the flawed metrics of the Journal Impact Factor and related measures. The NIHR Open Research model is part of an evolution in scientific publishing that moves away from the use of such measures.
What article-level metrics are available?
Individual articles will display article-level metrics as and when applicable, such as Altmetrics and the number of views and PDF downloads on NIHR Open Research.
How will publications on this platform be judged by funders and institutions?
Articles published on this platform will be associated with a variety of quantitative and qualitative metrics to provide open, article-level information, allowing the article to be evaluated on these areas. Transparent reviewing of all articles will also provide an important additional assessment at the article level, in addition to more traditional measures such as views, downloads and citations.
What will it cost to publish on this platform?
An Article Processing Charge (APC) depending on the article type will be charged by the service provider, F1000Research. F1000Research will provide editorial, production and administrative support to authors throughout the publication and peer review process.
Are NIHR grantees required to publish their research outputs on NIHR Open Research?
No, all researchers can continue to choose where they wish to publish their research as long as it meets the NIHR Open Access Statement. We hope that the benefits of publishing on NIHR Open Research, in particular the speed and ease of publication without hurdles, the transparency of the peer-review process, and the flexibility to publish a wide variety of research outputs, will encourage researchers to consider NIHR Open Research for their articles.
Do you offer copyediting support?
Occasionally, we may recommend that an article is copyedited before our editors proceed further with the article – either by a native English speaker or a professional copyediting search. Whilst NIHR Open Research does not offer this level of language editing, we have compiled a list of copyediting services you may wish to consider. Please note that these companies are independent from NIHR Open Research, and we are not able to guarantee the quality of their services.
Aims and scope – what is NIHR Open Research?
Is NIHR Open Research a preprint server like bioRxiv?
While NIHR Open Research is similar to a preprint server in that authors can rapidly publish anything they wish to share, there is an important distinction in that publication is automatically followed by invited transparent peer review. NIHR Open Research manages the peer review, thus completing the publication process. Once published on NIHR Open Research, the publication cannot be submitted elsewhere.
Are all articles in NIHR Open Research published, even if they have not been peer reviewed?
Yes, all articles are published irrespective of the peer review status. “Peer review” and “publication” are two independent concepts on NIHR Open Research. Most journals peer review and then publish; we publish and then peer review.
What is NIHR Open Research’s scope?
NIHR Open Research provides NIHR affiliated or funded/co-funded researchers a place to rapidly publish any of their results, including data notes, negative/null results, case reports, incremental findings, as well as larger research articles with substantial analyses. It also includes other research outputs such as documents.
NIHR Open Research's scope covers all original findings from NIHR-funded research across a wide range of topics including public health, clinical evaluation, technology development, health services and social care.
NIHR Open Research's scope covers all original findings from NIHR-funded research across a wide range of topics including public health, clinical evaluation, technology development, health services and social care.
What types of article does NIHR Open Research publish?
NIHR Open Research publishes standard research articles, methods, software tools, systematic reviews, as well as data notes, case reports and case series (‘Clinical Practice Articles’) study protocols and research notes. For a detailed description of each article type, please see our article guidelines. NIHR Open Research welcomes positive, negative or null studies, replication studies and refutation studies equally.
What content on NIHR Open Research is peer reviewed?
All articles published on NIHR Open Research undergo peer review. The peer review status is displayed in the upper right-hand corner of the articles.
Documents are not peer reviewed.
Documents are not peer reviewed.
Authorship
How should authorship contributions be listed?
NIHR Open Research uses CRediT taxonomy to capture author contributions as we believe that having more detail of who did what brings transparency, enables recognition for researchers, and provides greater accountability for all involved. Upon submission, you will be asked to select from a 14-item list, all the contributions made by each author. For more information, click here.
What happens if the author list changes in a new version of the same article?
If the author list of an article changes following its publication, a new version of the article can be published, with an explanation included in the ‘Amendments’ section at the top of the new version. As each version of an article has its own DOI, these can be individually cited and accessed. Therefore, the authorship list can change without affecting earlier versions of the article. The authorship contributions must also be revised accordingly.
Any changes in authorship must be confirmed by all authors in writing or by email, and the corresponding author is responsible for obtaining this confirmation from their co-authors. The NIHR Open Research team may also contact any co-authors directly to obtain this confirmation.
Who should I include in the Acknowledgments section?
Anyone who has contributed to the study but does not meet the criteria for authorship should be listed in the Acknowledgments section. It is the authors’ responsibility to obtain permission to include the name and affiliation, from all those mentioned in the Acknowledgments section.
How does open invited peer review of articles after publication work?
Why publish before peer review?
Conducting peer review after publication removes the delay for others who can benefit from accessing the work during the reviewing period. Closed review processes typically take many months. NIHR Open Research removes the possibility of an article being blocked or held up by a single editor or reviewer. It also allows other researchers in the field to judge the work for themselves and start building upon it, perhaps repeating the analysis for themselves, while expert reviewers assess it.
Are submissions checked for quality before they are published?
Articles are checked by our in-house editorial team (provided by F1000Research) who ensure that each submitted article is (co-)authored by an NIHR-funded or affiliated researcher and is appropriate in terms of scope and format and that the writing is comprehensible. We also check that article submissions are complete, not plagiarized, and that they meet ethical standards. Finally, we support authors by making sure that citations to all supporting data are included with the article, that the methods section contains adequate protocol information to make the data useful, and that all requirements in our article guidelines are met.
Documents do not undergo the same editorial checks; a brief check for topic, relevance and appropriateness is conducted in-house before they are given a permanent identifier (DOI).
Documents do not undergo the same editorial checks; a brief check for topic, relevance and appropriateness is conducted in-house before they are given a permanent identifier (DOI).
Why are there several versions of the same article?
As peer review takes place after publication, authors can submit a new version of their article that addresses any concerns or shortcomings that were identified during the peer-review process. Once a new version of an article is published, the reviewers are asked to re-review the article and check whether their concerns have been addressed.
All versions of an article are accessible, each with its own DOI (digital object identifier) and may be cited individually. The most recent article version is displayed as the default, and older article versions display a clear notification that newer versions are available.
All versions of an article are accessible, each with its own DOI (digital object identifier) and may be cited individually. The most recent article version is displayed as the default, and older article versions display a clear notification that newer versions are available.
What if I cite an article and a new version is published afterwards?
All versions of every article are retained and are accessible to readers, but if you visit an older version of an article, for example via a citation, a message will appear on-screen to alert you that there is a newer version available. If you have stored a version of the article's PDF in a reference manager or on your computer, you can ensure it is the most recent version by using the CrossMark button: when you click it, you will be able to see immediately if newer versions of the article are available.
Is ‘Awaiting peer review’ equivalent to ‘Submitted’ in other journals?
No, articles awaiting peer review in NIHR Open Research are officially published. You can cite papers that are awaiting peer review (for example in manuscripts, CVs, or grant applications), because the citation includes details of the peer review status, making it clear to everyone what stage of peer review the article has reached. Readers who later follow the citation link to view the paper will be able to see its current peer review status.
Are the review statuses ‘Approved’, ‘Approved with Reservations’, and ‘Not Approved’ equivalent to terms used when Editors make decisions on traditional journals (‘Accepted’, Minor/Major Revisions’, and Rejected’)?
Not quite. Most importantly, 'Not Approved' does not mean 'Rejected'. It simply means that the reviewer considers the current version of the article not to be of a high enough standard; they may have identified some flaws that seriously undermine the results and conclusions, unless they are fixed. The article remains published and a future revised version, if the reviewers judge it to be sufficiently improved, may then be given an 'Approved' or 'Approved with Reservations'.
The term 'Approved' means that the reviewer considers the article to be technically sound, and has either no or only minor revisions.
'Approved with Reservations' means that the reviewer believes the paper has academic merit, but has asked for a number of small changes to the article, or specific, sometimes more significant revisions.
In every case, even when all reviewers approve the article, future versions are welcome.
The term 'Approved' means that the reviewer considers the article to be technically sound, and has either no or only minor revisions.
'Approved with Reservations' means that the reviewer believes the paper has academic merit, but has asked for a number of small changes to the article, or specific, sometimes more significant revisions.
In every case, even when all reviewers approve the article, future versions are welcome.
Why did the definition of ‘Approved with Reservations’ change?
In June 2020, the 'Approved with Reservations' definition was altered from: “The article is not fully technically sound in its current version, but the reviewer's criticisms could be addressed with specific, sometimes major, revisions” to “the reviewer believes the paper has academic merit, but has asked for a number of small changes to the article, or specific, sometimes more significant revisions”.
This change was made both to better reflect the scope of articles published, and in response to feedback from our authors and reviewers that the distinctions between statuses needed to be more defined. To ensure that all articles receive a fair and transparent peer review, and to prevent reviewers' previous decisions being affected, this change only applies to articles published after June 2020.
This change was made both to better reflect the scope of articles published, and in response to feedback from our authors and reviewers that the distinctions between statuses needed to be more defined. To ensure that all articles receive a fair and transparent peer review, and to prevent reviewers' previous decisions being affected, this change only applies to articles published after June 2020.
Is the new version of my article a revision or an update?
New articles versions are considered to be revisions when they incorporate amendments in response to peer review comments; publication of revised versions is always free of charge. Versions are considered to be updates when the authors wish to add small developments or new information to the article, usually after it has passed peer review.
When can I revise my article?
You can revise your article at any time by publishing a new version, which will be displayed as the default. There are no extra APC charges for publishing a revised version of your article, and we would encourage you to revise your article in response to peer review reports. If we are expecting further peer review reports to be submitted in the near future, we may sometimes recommend that you wait until the reports are published. However, as our publishing process is entirely driven by the authors, it is your decision when you feel the time is right for a revision.
How can I revise or update my article?
To submit a revised or updated version of your article, you must be signed into the submitting author’s NIHR Open Research account. Please download the document provided on the Submissions page and ensure that track changes are turned on whilst editing the document. More information on how to create a new version, please visit Article Guidelines (new versions).
Can I withdraw my article after it has been published?
No, you can’t. Once your article has been published on NIHR Open Research, it has a formal citation with a DOI, which means that we must retain a permanent record of the full content and not change or remove it. If you would like to change your article, you can publish a new version; this way, someone looking for your original article will be automatically redirected to the new and revised version. Obviously, if you discover there is something seriously wrong with the whole paper, such as your samples getting mixed up or the key results were generated using a faulty reagent, you can ask us to mark the article as “retracted” and add a note explaining what happened. See details of our correction, replacement, and retraction policies.
Open peer review – how does this work at NIHR Open Research?
Does open peer review mean that everyone can see the reviewers’ names and comments?
Yes, we name our reviewers and publish their reports alongside the article. Everyone visiting an article page or viewing its PDF can see all peer review reports, reviewer names, and comments.
Why does NIHR Open Research publish the peer review reports?
There are many good reasons for being open about reviewer identities and comments.
First: We believe that secret peer reviewing, where authors don't know who has reviewed their work and reviewers don't have to publicly stand by their comments, can result in bias. Reviewers who review work that competes with their own may be tempted to unfairly criticize or delay its publication.
Second: Peer review reports can be interesting and informative and we believe that everyone should have a chance to see them. At their best, they offer an objective critique that adds real value to the article in question for authors and readers alike. It is also interesting to see the range of reviews some papers receive – positive, negative and neutral – which often reflects the real breadth of expert opinion in controversial and cutting-edge areas of science.
Third: If peer review reports are kept secret, reviewers get no credit for their contributions. Reviewers often devote an immense amount of time and effort to reviewing other scientists' work and advising them on how to improve it, and it is fair that this be recognized and acknowledged.
And finally, publicly accessible, signed reports tend to be better written and more constructive than anonymous, behind-the-scenes reviews – as has been shown in randomized controlled trials. So the act of publishing the reports actually improves the quality of the advice the authors receive.
First: We believe that secret peer reviewing, where authors don't know who has reviewed their work and reviewers don't have to publicly stand by their comments, can result in bias. Reviewers who review work that competes with their own may be tempted to unfairly criticize or delay its publication.
Second: Peer review reports can be interesting and informative and we believe that everyone should have a chance to see them. At their best, they offer an objective critique that adds real value to the article in question for authors and readers alike. It is also interesting to see the range of reviews some papers receive – positive, negative and neutral – which often reflects the real breadth of expert opinion in controversial and cutting-edge areas of science.
Third: If peer review reports are kept secret, reviewers get no credit for their contributions. Reviewers often devote an immense amount of time and effort to reviewing other scientists' work and advising them on how to improve it, and it is fair that this be recognized and acknowledged.
And finally, publicly accessible, signed reports tend to be better written and more constructive than anonymous, behind-the-scenes reviews – as has been shown in randomized controlled trials. So the act of publishing the reports actually improves the quality of the advice the authors receive.
What if a reviewer says something negative about my article and everyone can see it?
Constructive criticism is a core part of a reviewer's job; indeed, it’s an essential element of research itself. Therefore, peer review reports often contain suggestions for improvements or insights into a paper's weaknesses. Our peer review reports are no different in this regard. What does make NIHR Open Research different is that you can respond to your reviewers, to clarify and explain. And if a reviewer points out errors or omissions in your paper, or suggests ways to improve it, you can publish a revised version that addresses these issues.
What happens to papers that only receive negative reviews?
Peer reviewers are asked to focus on whether the presented research has academic merit and presented in sufficient detail for others to reproduce, not on the extent of novelty or interest. As experts in the field, the reviewers might judge a published article to not be sound science, or to require significant changes before it can be considered sound. Consequently, on rare occasions, some published papers may be unanimously negatively reviewed.
However, the article is never ‘rejected’ and authors are able to submit a revised version of their article that addresses the reviewers' criticisms; there no time constraints imposed by an editor, so if extensive revisions are required, authors can spend as much time as needed to address any issues. Authors can at any point defend their work with a comment that is posted in response to the critical reviewer(s).
If authors feel that a reviewer has been unfairly negative about their work, they can also request a new reviewer on either the original version or any revised version of their article. If authors feel that multiple reviewers have been unfairly negative they should contact editorial@openresearch.nihr.ac.uk to discuss their concerns, to ensure that the peer review process remains unbiased.
However, the article is never ‘rejected’ and authors are able to submit a revised version of their article that addresses the reviewers' criticisms; there no time constraints imposed by an editor, so if extensive revisions are required, authors can spend as much time as needed to address any issues. Authors can at any point defend their work with a comment that is posted in response to the critical reviewer(s).
If authors feel that a reviewer has been unfairly negative about their work, they can also request a new reviewer on either the original version or any revised version of their article. If authors feel that multiple reviewers have been unfairly negative they should contact editorial@openresearch.nihr.ac.uk to discuss their concerns, to ensure that the peer review process remains unbiased.
Who selects the reviewers for articles?
Reviewers are formally invited by the NIHR Open Research editorial team (as is the case with most journals). The editorial team are primarily responsible for identifying suitable reviewers, however the authors are welcome to suggest additional reviewers if they wish – all reviewers, including those from authors, are checked to ensure they are suitable to review before they are invited to contribute a report. Prospective reviewers who have collaborated or are currently collaborating with any of the authors are not eligible to review the article in question. Reviewers are also asked to declare any competing interests.
Who contacts the reviewers?
F1000Research administers the peer-review process on behalf of the authors. We contact the reviewers and assist them during the peer review. We ask that authors do not contact the reviewers directly as this can influence the objectivity of their reviews.
How do I know if an article has passed peer review?
The peer review status of an article is clearly indicated at all stages:
- Immediately on publication, and until the first peer review report is published, the article is labelled as AWAITING PEER REVIEW - as part of the article title and in the Open Peer Review summary box within the article HTML and PDF.
- As soon as a peer review report is published alongside the article, the current approval status is displayed. As additional reports are received, the approval status is updated.
- Once NIHR Open Research has been approved by bibliographic databases, articles that receive two ‘Approved’ statuses, or two ‘Approved with Reservations’ statuses and one ‘Approved’ status, will be indexed there.
Can I promote my article before it has been peer reviewed?
Please avoid promoting articles in the media until the article has passed the open peer review process. Promotion on social media is encouraged once the article has been published; please ensure the full citation is included, as this contains the approval status. NIHR Open Research should be cited as the source of these articles with a link to the article.
Who can comment on my work?
We encourage unsolicited open scientific discussion on all articles. Such contributions are published through our Comment system, and according to our policies anyone who wishes to comment on an article will be asked to declare any competing interests, along with their full name and affiliation.
While we welcome open scientific debate and discussion, we will not tolerate abusive behavior towards our authors and reviewers via our Comment system or via social media. In extreme cases we will consider contacting the affiliated institution to report the abusive behavior of individuals.
While we welcome open scientific debate and discussion, we will not tolerate abusive behavior towards our authors and reviewers via our Comment system or via social media. In extreme cases we will consider contacting the affiliated institution to report the abusive behavior of individuals.
Indexing
Where will my article be indexed?
Articles will appear in Google Scholar. Once an article has passed peer review, i.e. it has received at least two ‘Approved’ statuses, or one ‘Approved’ and two ‘Approved with Reservations’ statuses from independent and invited peer reviewers, it will be indexed in PubMed, PubMed Central, Europe PMC, British Library, Crossref and DOAJ. If an article is indexed, all versions, along with the peer review reports, are deposited.
What is NIHR Open Research’s backup/archiving strategy?
All our articles are indexed by Portico. Data and code associated with articles are only stored in repositories that we have approved based on (among other things) their archiving policies.
Source data in articles
Why do I have to deposit all the underlying data associated with my article in a repository?
NIHR Open Research asks you to deposit your data with an approved repository so that other researchers can analyze and use it, and so they can try to reproduce your results. Exceptions can only be made in very specific circumstances where there are issues with regards to data protection or security risks, and where the data cannot be suitably anonymised.
Which repositories do you accept for hosting of my data?
If there is a subject-specific repository for the type of data you are submitting, such as PDB for protein structures, we ask that you deposit the data there. For more information about suitable repositories and providing, preparing and hosting of data, please see our data preparation guidelines. For anything else, please contact us and we’ll be happy to advise on the best way to make your data available.
What kind of license do you require for my data?
We recommend the use of the CC0 (Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication) license for any datasets that are made available with your NIHR Open Research article.
Do I have to provide my data if there is a patient- or security-sensitive information in it?
If the data genuinely cannot be anonymized adequately to address all security or patient confidentiality issues (for example, using the HIPAA Privacy Rule's De-Identification Standard), then it can usually be stored in an access-controlled database; in such cases, we require that all researchers who meet the necessary criteria be given access to review the data on request.
How much data do I have to make available with my article?
It all depends on the types of experiments involved. The overarching rule is that there should be enough data provided that another researcher could reanalyze and/or try to reproduce your study. If you are unsure, please contact the editorial team and we will provide some guidance.
Publishing documents on NIHR Open Research
What is the difference between an article and a document?
Documents are research outputs that are useful to share but do not require, or lend themselves to, formal peer review.
Documents must meet certain criteria (see Document policies), adherence to which is checked through a basic editorial screen, which is less comprehensive than the article pre-publication check.
Unlike articles, documents are not peer reviewed and they therefore do not get indexed in standard bibliographic databases, such as PubMed/PubMed Central.
Documents must meet certain criteria (see Document policies), adherence to which is checked through a basic editorial screen, which is less comprehensive than the article pre-publication check.
Unlike articles, documents are not peer reviewed and they therefore do not get indexed in standard bibliographic databases, such as PubMed/PubMed Central.
Will depositing my document affect my ability to subsequently publish a paper?
A comprehensive database of current self-archiving policies for journals and publishers can be found at SHERPA-RoMEO, which summarizes where research that hasn't been peer reviewed can be deposited, and any conditions that are attached to that deposit. If you are unsure about the journal you plan to subsequently submit your work to then we strongly recommend that you contact the journal(s) asking for their views prior to submission of your document.
Can I submit my document if the work has already been published as a journal article?
You can deposit documents that relate to papers submitted to, or already published in, a journal, but you cannot submit an article that has already been published.
Please bear in mind, however, that you may have assigned the copyright for figures and tables that were also used in the paper to the publishers. If so, you should ensure that you have permission from the journal to reuse those figures/tables before you submit the document to NIHR Open Research.
Please bear in mind, however, that you may have assigned the copyright for figures and tables that were also used in the paper to the publishers. If so, you should ensure that you have permission from the journal to reuse those figures/tables before you submit the document to NIHR Open Research.
Can the abstract in my document on NIHR Open Research be the same as the meeting abstract at the conference?
Many societies hold the copyright of the conference abstracts, so they can be published in their journals. We therefore ask that you do not use the abstract you submitted to avoid any possible copyright infringement, but instead write a short separate summary that can be published alongside your document on NIHR Open Research.
The work presented in documents may be very preliminary; will users be aware of this?
All documents on NIHR Open Research are clearly labelled that they are not peer reviewed.
What stops someone scooping work from documents in NIHR Open Research?
Documents on NIHR Open Research will receive a unique permanent identifier (DOI) and are date-stamped, so by submitting the work, you will be able to show priority. If you are ready to publish it formally then you can of course convert it into a short article and have it published and then transparently peer reviewed on NIHR Open Research.
Under what license are documents published?
Most documents are published under a CC BY license, but other CC licenses may apply, as indicated on each research output’s published page under the image.
How to cite articles, other research outputs, datasets and peer review reports
How do I cite an article published on NIHR Open Research?
We have adapted the traditional system of article citation to include two additional elements: the article version number and the number of peer review reports that have received 'Approved', 'Approved with Reservations' or 'Not Approved' statuses. This information is placed in square brackets immediately after the article title to avoid it being accidentally removed on copying. All articles are assigned a DOI (digital object identifier). An article should be cited like this:
Authors. Article title [version number; details of peer review status]. NIHR Open Res YEAR, volume:publication number (doi).
The full citation for an article can be obtained by clicking the Cite button on the article page (next to the Abstract).
Authors. Article title [version number; details of peer review status]. NIHR Open Res YEAR, volume:publication number (doi).
The full citation for an article can be obtained by clicking the Cite button on the article page (next to the Abstract).
How do I cite a document?
Each document has its own DOI (digital object identifier) and can be cited using this DOI. The full citation can be obtained by clicking the Cite button on the document page. They should be cited like this:
Authors. Document title. NIHR Open Res YEAR, volume:publication number (doi)
Authors. Document title. NIHR Open Res YEAR, volume:publication number (doi)
How can a peer review report be cited?
All peer review reports associated with NIHR Open Research articles are assigned a DOI (digital object identifier) on publication. This means that they can be cited independently from the article. The full citation for a peer review report can be obtained by clicking the Cite button next to the peer review report. The correct format for a peer review report citation is:
Reviewer name(s). Peer review Report For: Article title [version number; details of peer review status]. NIHR Open Res YEAR, volume:publication number (doi)
Reviewer name(s). Peer review Report For: Article title [version number; details of peer review status]. NIHR Open Res YEAR, volume:publication number (doi)
How can I cite a dataset?
Source datasets associated with NIHR Open Research articles are deposited in repositories that meet certain criteria. Articles include a "Data Availability" section outlining where the source data can be found, including the permanent identifier the dataset(s) have been assigned by the repository and a reference with details of how to cite the dataset(s).
Licenses and copyright
NIHR Open Research is Open Access; which licenses are used for publishing?
NIHR Open Research provides immediate open access to its content on the principle that making research freely available to the public supports a greater global exchange of knowledge. Articles are published under a CC-BY license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and leaves the copyright of the article with the current copyright holder (usually the author or their institution). As the specific version of the CC-BY license applied may change due to periodic updates, the copyright information is shown below the abstract.
Most documents are also published under a CC BY license, but other CC licenses may apply, as indicated on each research output’s published page under the image.
Most documents are also published under a CC BY license, but other CC licenses may apply, as indicated on each research output’s published page under the image.
What licenses are used for peer review reports?
All peer review reports for articles on NIHR Open Research are published under a CC-BY license, permitting unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. The copyright remains with the current copyright holder (usually the reviewers or their institution). To ensure that copyright and licensing information is accurate, each peer review report has a ‘Copyright information’ section published alongside it.
Expanding your ORCID profile
How do I add my article to my ORCID profile?
NIHR Open Research supports the ORCID initiative, which provides every researcher with a unique digital identifier. The process of getting an ORCID ID is quick, easy and incurs no cost. We are keen to see it adopted on a wider scale and we encourage the use of ORCID iDs amongst our authors. Submitting authors are required to connect their ORCID iD at the point of submission and when the work is published, all co-authors are sent a link by email that allows them to connect their iD and add the article to their ORCID profile. Additionally, any registered user can connect their iD at any time, via the My pages.
Can I add my peer review report to my ORCID profile?
We have been working with ORCID and CASRAI so that peer review reports can be integrated into ORCID profiles, enabling reviewers to receive full credit for the input they’ve provided. When your peer review report is published, you will be sent a link via email that will enable you to easily add this report to your ORCID profile.
Will my ORCID profile auto-update?
Yes, once you have connected your ORCID iD to NIHR Open Research, all work that is published with you named as an author, whether an article or a peer review report, will automatically be added to your ORCID account.
Contact
NIHR Open Research is operated on behalf of the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, using services provided by F1000 Research Limited.
Editorial enquiries
For enquiries about scope and status of submissions including peer review: NIHR-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk General enquiries
For general enquiries or support requests: info@openresearch.nihr.ac.uk Media enquiries
Email: info@openresearch.nihr.ac.uk
Production enquiries
Email: production@openresearch.nihr.ac.uk
For enquiries about scope and status of submissions including peer review: NIHR-peerreview@journals.tandf.co.uk General enquiries
For general enquiries or support requests: info@openresearch.nihr.ac.uk Media enquiries
Email: info@openresearch.nihr.ac.uk
Production enquiries
Email: production@openresearch.nihr.ac.uk