eLife

eLife
eLife · CC BY 4.0 · source
Title	eLife
Discipline	Biomedical sciences, life sciences
Abbreviation	eLife
Publisher	eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
Country	United Kingdom
Frequency	Continuous
History	2012–present
License	Creative Commons

eLife eLife is a peer-reviewed open-access scientific journal covering biology, biomedicine, neuroscience, genetics, and related biochemistry fields. Founded with support from the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Wellcome Trust, and the Max Planck Society, the journal aims to accelerate dissemination of research by combining rapid publication with editorial practices drawn from leading research institutions. It operates as both a publisher and a platform, engaging researchers from institutions such as Harvard University, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, University of Oxford, Stanford University, and University of Cambridge.

History

Launched in 2012 after planning that involved stakeholders including the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Wellcome Trust, and the Max Planck Society, the journal sought to challenge incumbent publishers like Nature Research, Science, and Cell. Early editorial leadership included researchers affiliated with Rockefeller University, University College London, Princeton University, Columbia University, and University of California, San Francisco. Over its first decade, the journal expanded subject coverage to incorporate work from laboratories at MIT, Caltech, Johns Hopkins University, Karolinska Institute, and ETH Zurich and adapted innovations influenced by initiatives such as Plan S and discussions at the Open Access Week forums. Institutional partnerships with organizations like the European Molecular Biology Laboratory and the National Institutes of Health informed policy on reproducibility, transparency, and data availability.

Scope and Editorial Model

The journal covers experimental, theoretical, and methodological studies across domains represented at institutes including Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, Salk Institute, Pasteur Institute, Max Planck Institute for Biochemistry, and Gurdon Institute. Editorial decisions are made by a board drawn from researchers at University of California, Berkeley, Yale University, Imperial College London, University of Toronto, and University of Washington. The model emphasizes active editorial oversight reminiscent of practices at Cell Press and editorial traditions from Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, while seeking to reduce barriers noted at publishers such as Elsevier and Springer Nature.

Peer Review and Publication Process

Manuscripts are initially assessed by Senior Editors and Reviewing Editors drawn from communities at University of Chicago, University of Michigan, University of Pennsylvania, Duke University, and University of Edinburgh. The review process incorporates reviewers with affiliations like University of Tokyo, Peking University, Tsinghua University, University of Melbourne, and University of Sydney. Innovations in peer review include consultative review practices influenced by debates involving COPE and initiatives discussed at the Royal Society. The journal piloted formats for transparent review and reviewer recognition referenced against standards used by F1000Research and reform proposals advocated by Wellcome Trust and NIH working groups.

Open Access and Licensing

The journal publishes under Creative Commons licenses commonly used across publishers including PLOS, BioMed Central, and Frontiers. The licensing model aligns with mandates from funders such as the European Commission, Wellcome Trust, and the National Institutes of Health, and responds to policy frameworks like Plan S advocated by cOAlition S. Article-processing charges and institutional agreements have been negotiated with universities including Oxford University Press partner institutions, consortia such as the University of California system, and funders including Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Chan Zuckerberg Initiative-supported programs. The platform supports data deposition in repositories like GenBank, Protein Data Bank, Dryad, and Figshare.

Governance and Funding

The governance structure involves a non-profit entity overseen by a board with representatives from funders such as the Wellcome Trust, the Max Planck Society, and the Howard Hughes Medical Institute. Financial sustainability strategies have paralleled discussions in organizations like SPARC and Creative Commons about open-access funding models. Strategic decisions have been influenced by consultations with stakeholders from European Research Council, Medical Research Council (United Kingdom), Gates Foundation, and national agencies including the National Institute for Health Research. The organization has pursued revenue from article-processing charges, philanthropic grants, and institutional agreements akin to models used by PLOS and eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd-adjacent initiatives.

Impact and Reception

The journal has been cited in literature alongside articles in Nature (journal), Science, and PLOS Biology, and has attracted submissions from labs at Stanford University School of Medicine, Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, Broad Institute, and Whitehead Institute. Reception among researchers has been mixed in contexts similar to debates seen around Open Science Framework, with praise from advocates at Wellcome Trust and criticism from commentators associated with subscription-based publishers such as Elsevier and Springer Nature. Independently compiled metrics comparing citation performance and altmetrics have placed the journal among influential open-access venues alongside PLOS ONE and Nature Communications, while policy discussions at bodies like the House Committee on Science, Space, and Technology and the European Commission have referenced the journal in broader evaluations of scholarly communication reform.

Category:Academic journals