In — so before Twitter had even launched and Myspace was the main social network — Wellcome became the first research funder to introduce a mandatory open access OA policy.
Robert Kiley In November Wellcome became the first research funder to launch a publishing platform for the exclusive use of its grantholders. Wellcome Open Research, run on behalf of Wellcome by F, uses a model of immediate publication followed by invited, post-publication peer review.
All reviews are citable and posted to the platform along with the identities of the reviewers. This short blog post discusses the motivations behind establishing this publishing platform, and presents some data about the peer review process, as practised at Wellcome Open Research.
Motivations for developing Wellcome Open Research We believe we can make the process faster and more transparent, and make it easier for researchers to provide information that supports reproducibility For over a decade Wellcome has been at the forefront of the open access and data-sharing debates.
We believe that to maximise the impact of our research spend — and help to deliver our mission to improve human health — all research outputs must be FAIR — Findable, Accessible, Interoperable and Reusable.
In support of this aim we are seeking to improve the way research is communicated. Through Wellcome Open Research, we believe we can make the process faster and more transparent, and make it easier for researchers to provide information that supports reproducibility.
This includes traditional research articles, but also outputs such as data notes, protocols, method papers, software tools and null and negative results. Post-publication peer review One of the most innovative aspects of the platform is its use of invited, post-publication peer review.
Under this model every submission is subjected to a range of editorial checks, such as plagiarism detection, checking the data availability statement, and ensuring that the appropriate ethical standards have been adhered to.
Once these checks have been completed — and any issues addressed — the article is published. On publication, the reviewers — as suggested by the corresponding author — are formally invited to review the article.
As the research has already been published openly on the platform, reviewers can focus their efforts on providing help and advice on how the article can be improved, as well as highlighting any errors or omissions.
Authors can submit a new version of the article — either to address comments from reviewers or to update the publication in light of any new findings — and the peer review process is repeated for each new version.
Author-initiated peer review Just as sunshine is the best disinfectant, the transparency of this model should minimise any potential risks The logic of allowing the authors to suggest reviewers is that they are often best placed to do so.
It does, however, raise concerns from some who fear that authors may suggest reviewers who they know or who they otherwise believe are likely to write a less critical review. In terms of managing potential conflicts of interest, all reviewers are required to declare any associations with the author s.
F staff also seek to identify obvious conflicts, such as checking PubMed to determine if any authors have collaborated recently with the reviewer.
We ultimately believe that this system will be self-policing as both the identity of the reviewers and the review they provide are fully disclosed. Just as sunshine is the best disinfectant, the transparency of this model should minimise any potential risks.
Determining whether an author may suggest reviewers who will give them an easy ride is harder to ascertain.
Table 1, below, provides data on the peer review process as seen at Wellcome Open Research in the first 14 months of operation.
Peer review data at Wellcome Open Research: November — January One other aspect of open peer review which is worth discussing is whether it is more difficult to attract reviewers, compared with a more traditional model where reviewer identifies are not disclosed.
Although we have not been able to do a comparative analysis for this blog post, data from Wellcome Open Research shows that to reach indexed status, on average 11 reviewers were approached. Although this process puts additional burden on the author — who is required to identify suitable reviewers — the transparency of this approach means that the author is fully aware of the status of the peer review process.
From the experience of the first year of Wellcome Open Research we can conclude that this model is working effectively and encourage others to embrace it.Wellcome Collection Medicine Now is a permanent collection on display at the Wellcome Exhibition Centre.
Embodying Henry Wellcome’s vision to educate and inform, curators, Steve Cross and Ken Arnold have combined current medical issues with artistic response.
Wellcome Open Research (WOR), run on behalf of Wellcome by Faculty of (F), uses a model of immediate publication followed by invited, post-publication peer review. All reviews are citable and posted to the platform along with the identities of the reviewers.
90 reviews of Wellcome Collection "This is possibly the coolest museum in the world. If you are in London, have an open mind and two hours or so, then this is a free thing you should do."/5(90). Nov 14, · The Wellcome Collection is a museum and library near Euston Train station.
originally bequeathed by Henry Wellcome (the founder of the pharmaceutical company), the collection contains an eclectic mix of exhibits related to medicine/5(). The Wellcome Collection combines/contrasts medical history and artistic interpretations.
An exhibit "Teeth" includes talks on smiles, both dentally and artistically. The talk paired with an exhibit on the history of dentistry, with examples of fascinating /5(). 49 Wellcome Trust reviews.
A free inside look at company reviews and salaries posted anonymously by employees/5(49).