Home
FAQs
faqs
FAQs
General Questions
Is the MNI Open Research platform fully controlled by MNI and independent of any specific provider?
The MNI fully controls the MNI Open Research platform, and is free to use and change to any service provider as appropriate.
What are the advantages of publishing in MNI Open Research?
There are many benefits to publishing on this new platform:
- Rapid publication allows new findings to be shared within days of submission, accelerating discovery and innovation.
- Inclusion of all supporting non-sensitive data enables reanalysis, replication and reuse, which improves research reproducibility.
- Supports publication of a wide range of outputs – from research articles to data notes, and case reports to negative results.
- Authors, not editors, choose what they wish to publish.
- Authors can suggest peer reviewers most appropriate to their subject and whose opinions they value, and can cite the open peer review reports that vouch for the quality of their work.
How does MNI 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 MNI evaluate the outputs of its grantees who publish on MNI Open Research?
Many institutions and funders now strongly support initiatives aimed towards direct evaluation of research and judging all outputs on their own merit regardless of the venue of publication. MNI Open Research is fully embedded in the established scholarly publication framework ensuring all publishing standards are adhered to. Article-level metrics (e.g. citations, views, downloads, altmetrics) will enable direct evaluation of the research output itself, and are in line with initiatives that aim to improve the evidence base on which researchers are evaluated.
Does MNI Open Research have an Impact Factor?
MNI 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 MNI Open Research model provides the start of an evolution in scientific publishing that moves away from the use of such measures.
The expectation is that this, and other similar funder platforms that are expected to emerge, will ultimately combine into one central platform that ensures that assessment can only be done at the article-level.
The expectation is that this, and other similar funder platforms that are expected to emerge, will ultimately combine into one central platform that ensures that assessment can only be done at the article-level.
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 MNI 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?
Articles published on this platform will incur Article Processing Charges (APC) of between £540 and £920 (dependent on the article type). The MNI will cover the APCs of one MNI Open Research publication per lab for the first year as a pilot; labs are encouraged to publish additional articles at their own cost.
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 MNI 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 MNI Open Research, and we are not able to guarantee the quality of their services.
Does the platform have an API to allow the content to be downloaded?
Yes, The API allows anyone to download the XML and PDF of specific articles as well as to download links to the XML of the entire corpus of articles. Please contact us for instructions on use.
Aims and scope – what is MNI Open Research?
Is MNI Open Research a preprint server?
While MNI 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. MNI Open Research manages the peer review, thus completing the publication process. Once published on MNI Open Research, the publication cannot be submitted elsewhere.
Are all articles in MNI 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. Most journals peer review and then publish; we publish and then peer review.
What is MNI Open Research’s scope?
MNI Open Research provides MNI-affiliated researchers a place to rapidly publish any of their results, including data sets, negative results, protocols, case reports, incremental findings as well as more traditional narrative-based articles.
It publishes original research on all topics carried out by the MNI. This includes:
It publishes original research on all topics carried out by the MNI. This includes:
- Brain imaging
- Cellular and molecular neuroscience
- Cognitive neuroscience
- The study and treatment of neurological diseases and disorders.
What types of article does MNI Open Research publish?
MNI 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. MNI Open Research welcomes positive, negative or null studies, replication studies and refutation studies equally.
Authorship
How should authorship contributions be listed?
We are using the 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 over email, and the corresponding author is responsible for obtaining this confirmation from their co-authors. The MNI 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. MNI 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 a MNI-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.
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 their 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 their 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 MNI 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 MNI 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 MNI 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 MNI 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 MNI 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, opens up the possibility of 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. They 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 should be recognized and acknowledged.
And finally, publicly accessible, signed reports tend to be better written and more constructive than anonymous, behind-the-scenes reviews – this has also 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, opens up the possibility of 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. They 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 should be recognized and acknowledged.
And finally, publicly accessible, signed reports tend to be better written and more constructive than anonymous, behind-the-scenes reviews – this has also 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, so 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 MNI 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 the authors feel that multiple reviewers have been unfairly negative they should contact [email protected] 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 the authors feel that multiple reviewers have been unfairly negative they should contact [email protected] 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 MNI Open Research editorial team (as is the case with most journals). They are selected based on suggestions from the authors, and their suitability as a reviewer for the article is checked 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.
Why do I have to suggest reviewers for my article?
MNI Open Research has no academic editors who make decisions to accept or reject articles or identify suitable reviewers. Instead, the peer-review process is led entirely by the authors, who are responsible for suggesting reviewers for their article. Authors are best placed to identify those in their field who have the knowledge needed to review their article whilst meeting our reviewing criteria.
There is a set of tips for authors explaining ways of finding suitable reviewers, and in addition, we have created a Reviewer Finder Tool, which can be accessed via a link next to your submitted or published article in their My Research.
There is a set of tips for authors explaining ways of finding suitable reviewers, and in addition, we have created a Reviewer Finder Tool, which can be accessed via a link next to your submitted or published article in their My Research.
My article is already published – why am I being asked for more reviewers?
We ask authors to provide the names and details of at least 5 suitable reviewers before publication. Like traditional journals, we find that it is sometimes necessary to invite more than 5 reviewers (sometimes many more) until enough reviewers have agreed to review the article.
We will continue to contact authors for reviewer suggestions until at least 2 peer review reports have been published.
We will continue to contact authors for reviewer suggestions until at least 2 peer review reports have been published.
Who contacts the reviewers?
The MNI Open Research team administers the peer-review process on behalf of the authors. We contact the reviewers, who have been suggested by the authors, 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 MNI 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. MNI 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
What is MNI 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?
MNI 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 MNI 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?
There is no easy answer to this question; it all depends on the types of experiments involved. The overarching rule is that there should be enough data provided that another researcher could reanalyse and/or try to reproduce your study. If you are unsure, please contact the editorial team and we will provide some guidance.
How to cite articles, datasets and peer review reports
How do I cite an article published on MNI 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]. MNI 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]. MNI 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 can a peer review report be cited?
All peer review reports associated with MNI 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]. MNI Open Res YEAR, volume:publication number (doi)
Reviewer name(s). Peer review Report For: Article title [version number; details of peer review status]. MNI Open Res YEAR, volume:publication number (doi)
How can I cite a dataset?
Source datasets associated with MNI 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
MNI Open Research is Open Access; which licenses are used for publishing?
MNI Open Research articles are usually 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.
What licenses are used for peer review reports?
All peer review reports for articles on MNI 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?
MNI Open Research supports the ORCID initiative, which provides every researcher with a unique digital identifier. 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 iD to MNI 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
MNI Open Research is controlled by the Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital using services provided by F1000Research.
General enquiries
Email: [email protected] to contact us with questions about MNI Open Research. Editorial enquiries
Email: [email protected]
Address: 240 Blackfriars Rd, London, SE1 8BU, UK Media enquiries
Email: [email protected]
Production enquiries
Email: [email protected]
Email: [email protected] to contact us with questions about MNI Open Research. Editorial enquiries
Email: [email protected]
Address: 240 Blackfriars Rd, London, SE1 8BU, UK Media enquiries
Email: [email protected]
Production enquiries
Email: [email protected]