Wellcome Open Research

Wellcome Open Research
Title	Wellcome Open Research
Publisher	Wellcome Trust
Country	United Kingdom
Discipline	Biomedical research
Frequency	Continuous
History	2016–present

Wellcome Open Research

Wellcome Open Research is an open-access publishing platform launched to facilitate rapid dissemination of biomedical and health-related research funded by the Wellcome Trust, addressing reproducibility and transparency concerns raised by incidents such as the Reproducibility Project: Psychology and policy shifts exemplified by the Plan S initiative. The platform integrates closely with funders and institutions like the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, National Institutes of Health, and European Commission to align publication practices with mandates similar to those from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and the Royal Society. It operates within a broader ecosystem of platforms including F1000Research, bioRxiv, and arXiv, while interacting with registries and databases such as ClinicalTrials.gov, PubMed Central, and the Directory of Open Access Journals.

Overview

Wellcome Open Research provides a venue for immediate posting of research outputs, enabling authors associated with funders like the Wellcome Trust and partners such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation to publish articles, data sets, software, and protocols in a model comparable to services offered by F1000Research and interoperable with infrastructures like CrossRef and ORCID. The platform supports article types ranging from traditional articles and systematic reviews to case reports and methodological articles, linking to standards maintained by organizations such as the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors and the Committee on Publication Ethics. It emphasizes transparent peer review and metadata practices compatible with aggregators like Scopus, Web of Science, and indexing services administered by National Library of Medicine.

History and Development

The platform was launched in 2016 by the Wellcome Trust following discussions at forums including meetings of the World Health Organization and advisory input from stakeholders such as the Medical Research Council (United Kingdom) and the National Institutes of Health. Its inception responded to reproducibility crises highlighted by projects like the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology and policy initiatives from the European Commission and funder consortia exemplified by cOAlition S. Development involved collaborations with technology providers and editorial partners linked to projects such as OpenAIRE and the Wellcome Sanger Institute, building on precedents set by platforms including PLOS and BMC (part of Springer Nature). Subsequent milestones included integration with data resources like Zenodo and adoption of metadata schemas advocated by the Joint Declaration of Data Citation Principles.

Platform and Publishing Model

The platform uses a continuous publishing model with immediate article posting followed by transparent post-publication peer review, mirroring workflows employed by F1000Research and interacting with identifier systems such as Digital Object Identifier and ORCID iDs. It mandates data sharing consistent with policies from the Wellcome Trust, similar to requirements from the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and the National Institutes of Health, and leverages infrastructure from services like Crossref and Europe PMC to enhance discoverability. Licensing typically adopts open licenses aligned with recommendations from the Open Knowledge Foundation and indexing practices used by the Directory of Open Access Journals and PubMed Central.

Editorial and Peer Review Process

Manuscripts are posted rapidly and annotated with versioning; editorial checks are performed for compliance with funder mandates and ethical standards referenced by bodies such as the Committee on Publication Ethics, International Committee of Medical Journal Editors, and the World Health Organization. Peer review is invited and published openly, enabling reviewers to declare affiliations with institutions like the Wellcome Sanger Institute, University of Oxford, University of Cambridge, and Harvard University. The process integrates reporting guidelines promoted by entities including the Equator Network, and ethical oversight aligns with norms from the Declaration of Helsinki and approvals recorded with registries like ClinicalTrials.gov or the ISRCTN registry.

Governance, Funding, and Partnerships

Governance centers on policies set by the Wellcome Trust with input from advisory groups including representatives from the Medical Research Council (United Kingdom), European Research Council, and funders such as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation and National Institutes of Health. Funding for platform operations is provided by the Wellcome Trust and supplemented via partnerships with infrastructure providers such as OpenAIRE and technology vendors engaged by organizations like Crossref and DataCite. Strategic collaborations have been established with publishers and repositories including F1000Research, Zenodo, Europe PMC, and academic institutions such as the Wellcome Sanger Institute and major universities.

Reception and Impact

The platform has been cited in policy discussions involving Plan S, cOAlition S, and initiatives by the European Commission, and has influenced debates at conferences hosted by the Royal Society and the World Health Organization. Its rapid-posting model has enabled faster public access to outputs from researchers affiliated with institutions like University College London, Imperial College London, Johns Hopkins University, and Karolinska Institutet, and has been integrated into workflows for data sharing endorsed by the National Institutes of Health and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. Impact assessments reference metrics from aggregators such as Altmetric and indexing by Europe PMC and PubMed Central.

Criticisms and Controversies

Critiques have focused on concerns similar to debates around bioRxiv and arXiv regarding preprint reliability, the tension between rapid dissemination and traditional gatekeeping exemplified by disputes in venues like Nature and Science, and discussions involving standards from the Committee on Publication Ethics. Questions have arisen about editorial independence relative to funder influence observed in cases involving major funders like the Wellcome Trust and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, and about discoverability and indexing compared with established journals such as The Lancet and BMJ.

Category:Open access publishers Category:Academic publishing platforms