Publishing Policies

eLife is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), supports their principles, and follows their flowcharts for dealing with potential breaches of publication ethics. eLife also follows, as far as possible, the recommendations outlined in the Uniform Requirements for Manuscripts Submitted to Biomedical Journals, guidelines established by the ICMJE.

Authors are expected to comply with best practice in research and publishing ethics, and with our associated guidelines and policies, for example with regard to authorship, competing interests, and data availability and reporting standards.

Accession numbers for biological materials

Mutant mouse strains and cell lines should obtain and report accession numbers from Jackson Laboratories, European Conditional Mouse Mutagenesis Program (EUCOMM), Knockout Mouse Project (KOMP), European Mouse Mutant Archive (EMMA), Mutant Mouse Regional resource Centers, American Type Culture Collection (ATCC), Addgene and RIKE Bioresource CentreN. It is recommended that new mouse strains and cell lines should also be deposited to Jackson Laboratory and ATCC, respectively.

We strongly encourage authors to deposit copies of their plasmids as DNA or bacterial stocks with repositories, such as Addgene or PlasmID. Other established repositories for biological materials include the American Type Culture Collection, Arabidopsis Biological Resource Center, Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center, and Caenorhabditis Genetics Center.

Allegations of misconduct

If we receive an allegation of potential research or publication misconduct, we will alert those affected and ask for their response. We reserve the right to suspend the review process where necessary; to publish an expression of concern for published papers where appropriate; and/or to ask the relevant employers, or institution, or an appropriate regulatory body to investigate. If someone has concerns about potential misconduct in a paper published by or under consideration by eLife, they should contact the journal office, editorial@elifesciences.org, with their message addressed to the Editor-in-Chief.

Appeals

If we decided against reviewing your work and you wish to appeal, you should contact the editorial office. Please provide a formal response stating the grounds for appeal and include “Appeal” in the subject line.

Appeals will be considered when there has been a significant factual error, when a competing interest may have compromised the objectivity of the review process, or when new data or analyses that address the central concerns have already been acquired. Please clearly state your reasons for appeal when you contact us.

Appeals would ideally be requested within one month of receiving the decision, after which any new version of the paper should be submitted as a new submission. Appeals will usually be directed to the original editors. We will only consider one request for an appeal for any single version of a submission.

Authorship

eLife seeks to ensure that authorship is equitable, and that researchers are fairly recognised for their contributions. We recommend that all researchers who made substantial or important contributions to the design of a work, or the acquisition, analysis or interpretation of the data used in the paper, be included as authors. Authors should also ideally be involved in writing and editing the manuscript. eLife asks authors to use the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) to indicate their contributions.

We expect all authors to have read the submitted manuscript, and to have approved of any version posted online or submitted to a journal. Authors are expected to be accountable for their contributions, and to cooperate with questions relating to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, including data, analyses and representation. All authors should agree to the author list and order (and any changes during the revision process).

We suggest that authors review the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors’ (ICMJE) recommendations on defining the role of authors and contributors, although we do not fully endorse the recommendation that designated authors should always meet all four criteria for authorship.

For some submissions, efocusly medical submissions, we will ask authors to provide completed disclosure of interest forms provided by the ICMJE.

Anyone named in the acknowledgements should provide their permission.

Author identification

eLife verifies the identities of authors (and other individuals involved in the peer-review process) primarily through the use of email addresses and ORCID iDs. Authors contacting us about eLife papers – including, but not limited to, requests for corrections, retractions or name changes – should, wherever possible, use an email address that matches one used in their account in the eLife submission system.

If an author cannot contact us via their previous email address, but has an ORCID record already linked to their eLife profile, we would encourage them to consider updating their ORCID record with their new information before contacting us.

If neither of the above options is available, eLife staff will work with the author to enable them to verify their identity on their own terms and as simply and unobtrusively as possible. We do not require the provision of any “official” documents. Instead, potential options to achieve this would include, but are not limited to, providing our staff with a link to a new ORCID profile, an updated faculty page, a photograph of their university or institution’s ID card, a letter from their supervisor or line manager.

Cell lines

Regarding the use of cell lines, authors must report their source, confirm the identity has been authenticated, state the authentication method (such as STR profiling), and report the mycoplasma contamination testing status. Authors should authenticate the identity of their cell lines at least once per year, and when starting new work or new cell lines confirm that the cell lines are free from mycoplasma and other microorganisms. Authors should check the list of commonly misidentified cell lines maintained by the International Cell Line Authentication Committee before submission and justify the use of any cell lines contained therein. Cell line authentication services are offered by ATCC, Science Exchange, and others.

Clinical trial registration

eLife mandates that clinical investigators reporting phase II and phase III clinical studies must follow the CONSORT Statement for reporting of results. Submissions not in compliance with the guidelines will be returned to the authors before review. REMARK and BRISQ guidelines should be used to report studies with tumor biomarkers and human biospecimens, respectively. All clinical trials, with the exception of solely pharmacokinetic studies, must be registered prior to patient enrollment in the country’s registry that follows ICMJE guidelines. In the U.S., registration with www.clinicaltrials.gov is mandatory, and other international registries, such as the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform that includes the ISRCTN registry, can be used. The clinical trial registration number should also be stated in the manuscript.

Community-developed checklists for publishing images and image analyses

To promote reproducible and understandable images and analyses, we recommend that authors make use of two checklists developed by the QUAREP community when preparing microscopy images and reporting microscopy image analyses for publication (as described here). The checklists can be downloaded here.

Competing Interests and Disclosures

ICMJE states that the “potential for conflict of interest and bias [competing interests] exists when professional judgment concerning a primary interest (such as patients' welfare or the validity of research) may be influenced by a secondary interest (such as financial gain)”. Authors, reviewers, and editors are all required to declare any competing interests that might be perceived to interfere with the objectivity of the presentation or handling of the work. Any relevant patents, patent applications, and products in development that relate to a submission must be disclosed in full, including patent numbers and titles.

For further information on competing interests, see the recommendations of the ICMJE and the guidance provided by PLOS. Specifically, ICMJE requires disclosure of interactions with any entity that could be considered broadly relevant to the work, and that any such interactions over the 36 months prior to submission of the work, should be disclosed. Competing interests disclosures should be made by the submitting author on behalf of all authors, via the manuscript submission system.

For papers submitted in medicine, each author listed on the manuscript should complete the ICMJE Conflict of Interest form and send their completed PDF form to the corresponding author. The corresponding author should then upload a .zip file containing all authors' forms as a Related Manuscript File alongside their submission. This .zip file should be uploaded at Full submission stage in addition to completing the competing interests section of the submission form, using the ICMJE forms as a basis for submitted declarations.

Compliance with funder open-access policies

eLife complies with all major funding agency requirements for open access to the published results of their research grants. eLife articles are:

• Made openly available immediately at the point of publication;
• Published under a Creative Commons Attribution (CC-BY 4.0) or Public Domain Dedication (CC0) license;
• Automatically deposited in Pubmed Central/Europe PMC at the time of publication (of the Version of Record);
• Published with funding information, including grant numbers, which are deposited by eLife to the Open Funder Registry;
• Sent to the JISC Publication Router, which helps institutions comply with the open-access policies of research funding bodies and the Research Excellence Framework.

Copyrighted material

Copyrighted material (in full or in part) should not be included in a submission to eLife, unless you have explicit permission from the copyright holder that it can be reproduced under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution license.

Occasionally we have published figures or parts of figures which cannot be re-published under a Creative Commons Attribution license. In those instances we ensure the correct attribution is provided within the human readable text (HTML and PDF versions of the article) and the underlying XML, for machine readability.

Corrections and retractions

Publishers have a responsibility to correct errors that have been discovered in published articles. Requests for corrections or retractions should be sent to the journal’s editorial staff for consideration and further advice.

Corrections are limited to those that will affect the scientific integrity of the content. Requests to retroactively change names in published articles can, however, be made in accordance with our name-change policy without requiring a formal correction.

Once the final VOR is published, a formal correction would need to be issued. Formal corrections are published on the eLife website, with links to a corrected version of the relevant article. The previous version of the article is replaced and the published correction provides a clear record of the change. We will transmit corrections to PubMed Central and PubMed as well as other relevant indexes and repositories, although some services will not be able to present the correction or replace the content. If you have any concerns about a correction, please contact the editorial staff.

Data, software, and research materials availability

Data, methods used in the analysis, and materials used to conduct the research must be clearly and precisely documented, and be maximally available to any researcher for purposes of reproducing the results or replicating the procedure.

Regardless of whether authors use original data or are reusing data available from public repositories, they must provide program code, algorithms, scripts for statistical packages, and other documentation sufficient to allow an informed researcher to precisely reproduce all published results.

In rare cases, despite authors’ best efforts, certain data, materials or software cannot be shared for legal or ethical reasons. In such cases, authors must inform the editors at the time of submission by clearly indicating this in the article text and in the Data Availability statement. This will be taken into account during the review process. Authors are encouraged to anticipate data, material and software sharing at the beginning of their projects to provide for these circumstances. Editors may grant exceptions to data and material access requirements provided that authors:

• explain the restrictions on the dataset, materials and/or software and how they preclude public access;
• provide a public description of the steps others should follow to request access to the data, materials or software;
• provide documentation that will precisely reproduce all published results;
• provide access to all data, materials and software for which the constraints do not apply.

eLife's data availability policy is designed to maintain high standards of research reproducibility, and to promote the reuse of new findings (read more). If readers experience difficulty in procuring data, software and/or research materials after publication, they should contact the eLife editorial office at editorial@elifesciences.org.

Software

Authors are required to follow the guidelines developed by PLOS if new software or a new algorithm is central to the submission; for example, authors must confirm that software conforms to the Open Source Definition and is deposited in an appropriate public repository. To ensure that software can be reproduced without restrictions and that authors are properly acknowledged for their work, authors should license their code using an open source license.

Authors are encouraged to use version control services such as GitHub, GitLab, and SourceForge. eLife archives code accompanying eLife publications which has been deposited on GitHub or another version control service at Software Heritage. Binary files (“non-text files”, such as images, zip files, or program data) should be kept to a minimum and, if possible, they should not exceed 50MB. Please try to avoid files larger than 100MB as they will require focus handling.

Research Materials and RRIDs

In accordance with the principles established in ‘Sharing Publication-Related Data and Materials’ (doi:10.1104/pp.900068), a condition of publication is that authors must make the materials and resources described in their article promptly available upon reasonable request from academic researchers. This is consistent with eLife’s premise for unfettered transparency and for purposes of replication and reproducibility, eLife expects all authors of published manuscripts to share materials with other investigators wishing or willing to replicate or expand upon published data. This is particularly important for materials that include unique reagents that are otherwise not available.

All biological reagents must be made available to qualified investigators upon reasonable request. We strongly encourage authors to deposit copies of their plasmids as DNA or bacterial stocks with repositories such as Addgene or PlasmID. Other established repositories for biological materials include the American Type Culture Collection, Arabidopsis Biological Resource Center, Bloomington Drosophila Stock Center, Caenorhabditis Genetics Center, the European Conditional Mouse Mutagenesis Program, the European Mouse Mutant Archive, the Knockout Mouse Project, the Jackson Laboratory, the Mutant Mouse Regional Resource Centers, and RIKEN Bioresource Centre.

Authors should include a statement at the end of the Materials and methods to provide information about the availability of the materials and resources described in the article, such as how such materials may be acquired, if there is a cost associated with their cost associated with their transfer, including any restrictions in availability or use.

To help promote the identification, discovery, and reuse of key research resources, we encourage you to include Research Resource Identifiers (RRIDs) within the Materials and Methods section to identify the model organisms, cells lines, antibodies, and tools (such as software or databases) you have used (e.g. RRID:AB_2178887 for an antibody, RRID:MGI:3840442 for an organism, RRID:CVCL_1H60 for a cell line, and RRID:SCR_007358 for a tool). The RRID Portal lists existing RRIDs, and instructions for creating a new one if an RRID matching the resource does not already exist.

Dual-use research

Regarding the oversight of dual use life-sciences research, we follow the recommendations formulated by the National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB). If there are any concerns about dual use life-sciences research during submission or review, please bring them to the attention of the journal’s editors.

Editorial independence and integrity

eLife follows the guidance of the World Association of Medical Editors and the Council of Science Editors regarding editorial independence. The editors of eLife, under the leadership of the Editor-in-Chief, have sole responsibility, authority, and accountability for the editorial content of the journal. Submissions are judged on their own merits, regardless of funding, author affiliations, or author relationships with eLife.

The funders and sponsors of eLife have no role in the selection, evaluation, or editing of the content. The content published in eLife does not represent the opinions of the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Max Planck Society, the Wellcome Trust or the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation.

Ethics and reporting of animal and/or human experiments

Work involving human participants or animal experimentation is expected to be conducted to the highest ethical standards, for example in accordance with the World Medical Association Declaration of Helsinki for medical research, and with the relevant legislation and guidance for animal research listed by NC3Rs. For work involving humans, authors are expected to describe in the Methods section of their paper the ethical protections applied to their work, specifically stating the name of the institutional review board (ethics committee/ethics review board) which approved their study.

For research involving animals, authors should follow the ARRIVE guidelines (and state clearly in the Materials and Methods section whether animals were maintained singly or in groups). For work on animal behaviour and cognition, specifically (including observational and experimental studies, both in captivity and in the wild), authors should also consult the STRANGE framework and provide detailed information – as applicable – on the origin (including trapping method), sex, age/developmental stage, mass/body condition, social status, personality type, housing conditions (including social contacts and enrichment), past opportunities for individual and social learning, experimental history, and testing protocols (including social context), for: the final sample of subjects contributing data to the study; and the subjects that were part of the original sample, but did not contribute data (describe reasons for exclusion). Furthermore, with reference to the STRANGE framework, authors should evaluate scope for sampling biases, efocusly with regards to subjects’ origin, self-selection behaviour and prior experience, and describe what efforts (if any) were undertaken to mitigate potential sampling biases, for example in terms of sourcing representative subjects (such as using a variety of trapping methods) or adjusting experimental protocols to suit non- or slowly-engaging individuals. This information should be summarized in two brief statements in the main text of research articles: one in the Materials and Methods section evaluating the ‘STRANGEness’ of the test sample, and another in the Discussion section explaining how potential biases may limit the generalizability of the reported findings.

For work involving animal research, authors should follow the ARRIVE guidelines (and state clearly in the Materials and Methods whether animals were maintained singly or in groups).

For human participants research informed consent must have been obtained (or the reason for lack of consent explained). When this work includes identifying, or potentially identifying, information, authors must also download the Consent Form for Publication in eLife (PDF), which the individual, parent, or guardian must sign once they have read the article and been informed about the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution license (form and guidance based on those developed by PLOS). The signed consent form should not be submitted alongside the article, but authors should file it with the individual's case notes and the ethics statement should state that consent authorisation for publication has been obtained.

For clinical trials, eLife follows the recommendations of the ICMJE that all trials must have been prospectively registered to be considered for publication, and the clinical trial registration number will be requested during submission.

Image acquisition and presentation

Image files must not be manipulated or adjusted in any way that could lead to misinterpretation of the information present in the original image. See ‘What's in a picture? The temptation of image manipulation’ (Rossner and Yamada 2004, Journal of Cell Biology, 166:11) and also 'Avoiding Twisted Pixels: Ethical Guidelines for the Appropriate Use and Manipulation of Scientific Digital Images’ (Cromey 2010, Sci Eng Ethics, 16-639-667) for valuable guidance on acceptable practice and examples of inappropriate manipulation. Please take note of the following guidance in particular:

• Minimal processing of images (for example, changing brightness and contrast) is appropriate only where it is applied equally across the whole image and is equally applied to controls.
• Contrast should not be adjusted to obscure data.
• Processing an image to emphasise one region at the expense of others, or to emphasise experimental data relative to the control, is not permitted.
• Combining images that should otherwise be presented separately may misrepresent the original data. If different images do need to be combined, then this should be clearly indicated in the image (for example, including dividing lines in gels) and described in the Figure legend.

Please note that authors should provide information within their submission about the tools and techniques used when acquiring and preparing images. For example, submissions including microscopy images or autoradiograms should include information about the exposure times, the acquisition parameters, and whether the image received any post-acquisition treatment (for example stating if the format or scales were modified).

Images may be subject to screening and we may need to request the original, unprocessed figure files/raw data for further review.

For submissions with Figures containing gels or blots, we require that both (1) the original files of the full raw unedited gels or blots and (2) figures with the uncropped gels or blots with the relevant bands clearly labelled be provided as source data files in a zipped folder or alternatively uploaded to a suitable repository.

Inclusion in Global Research

eLife has adopted PLOS’s Inclusivity in Global Research policy, aiming to promote transparency in reporting and high standards for research ethics and authorship for eLife publications of global research performed outside of researchers’ own country or community.

Authors of relevant eLife research articles may therefore be asked to complete an “Inclusion in Global Research” form PDF;Word, which outlines ethical, cultural, and scientific considerations specific to inclusion in global research. The completion of the form may be requested when researchers have travelled to a different country to conduct research, if research uses samples collected in another country, research with Indigenous populations or their lands, or if research is on cultural artefacts.

Researchers travelling to another country solely to use laboratory equipment will not normally be required to complete the form. However, the form can be requested at the journal’s discretion for any submission that eLife editors have invited in for peer review – if you have been requested to complete this form by the eLife, please do so.

If after peer review you choose to have your Reviewed Preprint published as the ‘Version of Record’, then the “Inclusion in Global Research” form will be published alongside your article.

Licensing

Because articles published by eLife are licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution license, others are free to copy, distribute, and reuse them (in part or in full), without needing to seek permission, as long as the author and original source are properly cited.

Myanmar (Burmese) amber

We follow the guidance set forth by the Society for Vertebrate Paleontology in terms of recommended conditions and certifications, as described in the below linked documents, when considering the publication of studies involving amber from Burma. Submissions involving Burmese Amber that don’t meet the recommendations and certifications will not be considered for publication.

• Myanmar Amber: Guidelines for Researchers, Research Institutions and Publishers
• Myanmar Amber: Guidelines for the Peer Review Process
• Due Diligence Provenance Checklist for Myanmar Amber

Name-change policy

eLife understands that people change their names for many reasons, including – but not limited to – marital status, religion and gender identity. If you are an author, editor or reviewer looking to change your name in an eLife article, we will first check that you are requesting the change on your own behalf. Our editorial staff are keen to work with all researchers to enable them to verify their identity on their own terms (see “Author identification” above). We do not require legal or official proof of a name change.

Once confirmed, we will then update the existing versions of the article to reflect the name change. A change of name will not require a new version or formal correction; the DOI will remain the same.

If the name change is in an author list, you may wish to inform your co-authors so that they use an updated offline copy or change the way they cite the publication. Our editorial office will confirm with you if we should wait until a particular date before enacting the change to give time to communicate with co-authors if desired. Alternatively, if requested, we can notify the corresponding author once the article is updated. Authors can also request that we add an optional annotation on the updated article to make readers aware that a name change took place with the following standard text: “This article has been updated in response to a name-change request; please ensure that you cite it correctly.”

We will send the updated information to PubMed, PubMed Central and Crossref, and to the eLife API and Github repository. We are unable to update citations to the articles and note that some downstream repositories and external services that index eLife content cannot be updated post-publication.

Requests to update the name of another individual will only be considered with their explicit consent. If you wish to make use of this policy or have any questions, please contact our journal staff. All name change requests will be kept confidential, as per our privacy notice.

Nomenclature

Correct and established nomenclature should be used throughout the article, such as for gene names, species names and SI units. The appropriate nomenclature databases for correct gene names and symbols should be consulted. Helpful reference points for approved nomenclature include Genetic nomenclature for Drosophila melanogaster; Genetic Nomenclature for Caenorhabditis elegans; A Standard For Maize Genetics Nomenclature; Arabidopsis Nomenclature; Guidelines for Human Gene Nomenclature; Rules for Nomenclature of Genes, Genetic Markers, Alleles, and Mutations in Mouse and Rat; the Xenopus Gene Nomenclature Guidelines; and the Zebrafish Nomenclature Guidelines.

Note that in the specific case of a study that reports a new taxon name, authors are required to follow the guidelines developed by PLOS for zoological and botanical names.

Preregistration, Registered Reports, and Replication Studies

Preregistration of studies involves registering the study design, variables, and treatment conditions prior to conducting the research. For clinical trials, eLife follows the recommendations of the ICMJE that all trials must be prospectively registered to be considered for publication, and the clinical trial registration number will be requested during submission. For other submissions, authors are encouraged to consider whether preregistration would be appropriate, noting if they have done so within their cover letter and submission. If the preregistration included a precise analysis plan, that should be included as well.

We will consider Replication Studies that provide new insights into previously published research. We will apply the same editorial standards that we apply to other types of submission. We have also published Replication Studies (and Registered Reports) as part of the Reproducibility Project: Cancer Biology.

Reporting Standards

eLife endorses the Materials Design Analysis Reporting (MDAR) Framework for minimum reporting standards in the life sciences, and we ask authors to consider all aspects of the MDAR Framework relevant to the study when preparing the work for submission.

To facilitate the interpretation and replication of experiments, authors are required to upload a completed MDAR Checklist (PDF;Word) before peer review. Authors are also required to adhere to well-established reporting standards, such as for microarray experiments, clinical trials, and so on; see below for the reporting standards and guidelines that we require authors to adhere to for specific study types.

Authors are required to cite the specific guidelines that they have followed in the reporting of their work, and we encourage authors to upload any relevant reporting checklists or documents as a Reporting Standards Document to indicate the use of appropriate reporting guidelines for health-related research (see EQUATOR Network), life science research (see the BioSharing Information Resource), or animal research (see ARRIVE guidelines and STRANGE framework).

For the following types of study, eLife asks authors to use certain reporting guidelines to support clearer and more detailed reporting; in each case, the completed reporting checklist and flow diagram (where applicable) should be uploaded as additional files with the full submission:

• Clinical trials: CONSORT
• Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: PRISMA
• Observational studies in epidemiology (including cohort, cross-sectional, and case-control studies): STROBE
• Diagnostic accuracy studies: STARD

In the specific case of a study containing an X-ray crystal structure, authors are required to upload a validation summary report from one of the Worldwide Protein Data Bank organisations as a Related Manuscript File. The associated maps and coordinate data for the structure should be placed into a zipped folder and uploaded as a Supporting Zip Document; please label this as "maps and coordinate data for review".

In the specific case of a study containing functional enzyme data, we encourage authors to deposit data to STRENDA DB and to upload the “Experimental data fact sheet” that accompanies the deposition as a Reporting Standards Document in the submission to eLife.

Sex and Gender Equity in Research

eLife endorses the Sex and Gender Equity in Research (SAGER) guidelines for the reporting of sex and gender information in the study design, data analyses, results and interpretation of findings. Where appropriate, authors are encouraged to use the SAGER guidelines checklist. In brief, authors should:

• Use the terms sex and gender carefully to avoid confusion.
• Title and abstract: specify the sex of animals or any cells, tissues and other material derived from these and the sex and gender of human participants.
• Introduction: where relevant indicate whether sex and/or gender differences may be expected.
• Methods: report whether sex and gender were accounted for in the study design, if not justify the reasons for any exclusion or inadequate representation of males or females.
• Results: where appropriate, data should be presented disaggregated by sex and gender. Sex- and gender-based analyses should be reported regardless of outcome. Clinical trial data on withdrawals and dropouts should also be disaggregated by sex and gender.
• Discussion: the potential implications of sex and gender on the results and analyses should be discussed. Provide a rationale if a sex and gender analysis was not carried out and the resulting implications on the interpretation of the results.

Use of artificial intelligence tools and technology

Generative artificial intelligence tools such as ChatGPT or AI using large language models to generate article content are at an essential level just tools as, for example, imaging or statistical software. Whilst such AI tools might be used to aid researchers and authors in doing their work, they cannot be listed as or serve as co-authors of a paper, and their use must be clearly described in the Materials and Methods section. All authors are expected to comply with best practice in research and publishing ethics, remain accountable for their contributions, responsible for the proper use of AI tools and the reporting of AI tool-output, and are expected to cooperate with questions relating to the accuracy or integrity of any part of the work, including data, analyses and representation.

Research conducted by eLife: As a way of improving our services, we periodically undertake research and surveys relating to eLife's submission and review process. Where appropriate we will share our findings so that others can benefit. Participation does not affect our policies relating to the confidentiality of the review process. If you would like to opt out of eLife's research and/or surveys, please contact the journal office (editorial [at] elifesciences [dot] org).

Data Availability

Purpose and General Principles

To maintain high standards of research reproducibility, and to promote the reuse of new findings, eLife requires all data associated with an article to be made freely and widely available. These must be in the most useful formats and according to the relevant reporting standards, unless there are compelling legal or ethical reasons to restrict access. The provision of data should comply with FAIR principles (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable).

Specifically, authors must make all original data used to support the claims of the paper, or that is required to reproduce them, available in the manuscript text, tables, figures or supplementary materials, or at a trusted digital repository (the latter is recommended). This must include all variables, treatment conditions, and observations described in the manuscript. The authors must also provide a full account of the materials and procedures used to collect, pre–process, clean, generate and analyze the data that would enable it to be independently reproduced by other researchers. The authors must ensure the provenance of the data for at least a 10 year period.

This document details and illuminates this policy, and addresses several common issues we have encountered with data availability in the past, so that authors can avoid them in the future.

Timing of Data Release

eLife considers works to be published when they are posted as preprints, and expects preprints we review to meet the standards outlined here. We recognise, however, that while preprints and the infrastructure to publish them are still evolving this may not always be practical.

Data Availability Statement

All eLife papers must contain a Data Availability Statement that details how all relevant data are being made available, including accession codes and/or other identifiers.

Compliance with Laws and Ethical Standards

Data sharing must comply with all relevant legal requirements for data sharing as well as applicable institutional standards. Under no circumstances should requirements of the eLife Data Availability Policy supersede legal or ethical standards for data sharing.

Restrictions on Data Access

If data availability must be limited to ensure participant or patient privacy or to comply with legal or ethical requirements, the authors must clearly articulate those reasons in the Data Availability Statement and a specific exemption must be granted by the handling eLife editors.

If, in exceptional cases, data access must be requested from the authors for legal or ethical reasons, a specific exemption must be granted by the handling eLife editor, and the precise mechanism, including contacts and timeline, must be stated. Simply saying, “Data will be made available upon request” is not acceptable.

If authors use proprietary data, it is their responsibility to make prior agreements with the data owners so that the data will be made available and a precise mechanism, including contacts and timeline, must be provided in the Data Availability Statement. In addition, the owners of the data must be clearly stated, and the editors should be made aware of any ethical and/or legal constraints in advance.

If the authors use data that is publicly available but with restrictions, these restrictions should be clearly described in the Data Availability Statement.

In all cases where data access must be restricted, the authors should ensure that the data are available to editors and reviewers, unless there are legal or ethical limitations that prevent this. Any such limitations must be made known to the editors at the time of submission.

Use of External and Unpublished Data

In addition to ensuring that readers have access to all data used in the paper, as described above, authors should comply with any and all agreements they themselves entered into to obtain access to these data. They should also adhere to community standards with regards to embargoes and data citation, unless they believe there are legal, ethical or scientific reasons not to do so, in which case a specific exemption must be granted by eLife editors.

Authors using unpublished datasets must abide by the relevant guidelines followed by the respective research communities for the use and acknowledgment of those data resources (including the Fort Lauderdale and Toronto agreements in the case of genomic datasets), obtaining permission where required (which should be stated in the cover letter), and citing the appropriate laboratory, website, and accession numbers.

Mechanisms of Data Sharing

Whenever possible, authors should make data available via trusted institutional or third-party repositories that adhere to policies that make data discoverable, accessible, and usable. Authors must ensure that the data are preserved over the long term and that datasets are assigned unique and persistent identifiers. Author–maintained websites are generally not compliant with this requirement, but we will grant exceptions when they are the only viable option. Please see our list of recommended repositories on the FAIRsharing Resource for specific types of data.

For guidance on data sharing, authors are also encouraged to upload their article to DataSeer, which provides a free report that outlines datasets in the article that should be shared, the appropriate raw file formats (see DataSeer wiki), and recommends suitable data repositories.

Handling of Requests for Exceptions

Any exceptions to the aforementioned policies regarding Data Availability and Sharing should be requested initially in the cover letter at the time of submission. In rare cases, despite authors’ best efforts, certain data or materials cannot be shared for legal or ethical reasons. Every effort will be made to consider these (rare) requests expeditiously so as not to delay review. In such cases, and their variations, authors may be asked to share data with journal editors with an assurance of confidentiality, in order to verify findings.

Ongoing Commitment to Data Sharing

Once a paper is published, eLife expects the authors to comply with its policies on Data Availability and Sharing. If readers experience difficulty in procuring data after publication, they should contact the eLife editorial office at editorial@elifesciences.org. If the editorial staff and editors cannot amicably address the issue, which we expect not to be the case, eLife may publish a statement to reflect that readers were not able to access the data required to replicate or reproduce the findings.

Specific Data Repositories

The following types of focusized datasets should be deposited in publically–accessible repositories:

• Solved crystal structures of small molecules should include a .cif file, a figure with probability ellipsoids, and structure factors with an output from IUCR CheckCIF routine, and should be deposited into Cambridge Structural Database.
• For macromolecules, authors must submit validation reports, together with coordinates and structure factor amplitudes or intensities, and deposited into wwPDB or Biological Magnetic Resonance Databank (BMRB). Density maps and coordinate data from structures derived from electron microscopy should be deposited in Electron Microscopy Data Bank (EMDB), and should be annotated for immediate release.
• Sequence reads and assembly must be included for reference genomes, while novel short sequences, including epitopes, functional domains, genetic markers and haplotypes should be deposited, together with surrounding sequences, into Genbank, DNA Data Bank of Japan (DDBJ), or EMBL Nucleotide Sequence Database (ENA). DNA and RNA sequencing data should be deposited in NCBI Trace Archive or NCBI Sequence Read Archive (SRA).
• Genetic variant data should be deposited in dbSNP, dbVar or European Variation Archive (EVA).
• Protein sequences and proteomic data should be deposited in Uniprot and PRIDE, respectively.
• Gene expression data should be deposited in Gene Expression Omnibus (GEO) or ArrayExpress.
• Data on human genotypes and phenotypes must be deposited into dbGAP or European Genome-phenome Archive (EGA), unless the data is deemed to be private or sensitive, such as data from electronic medical records, forensics, and vulnerable populations. In these cases authors should notify eLife editors in advance and fully explain the underpinnings of the restriction(s).
• In instances where a domain–specific archive does not exist, authors can deposit data on Dryad, Dataverse, or Open Science Framework. A comprehensive catalogue of recommended databases is available at the FAIRsharing Resource.

Publication Fees

For authors submitting from January 31, 2023 there is a publication fee of $2,000, charged at the point that a preprint is sent for peer review. (If the fee is invoiced to an individual, rather than a business, then VAT of 20% is added to the fee.) The publication fee includes the cost of the initial evaluation, staff checks, peer review, the publication of a Reviewed Preprint online, re-review, publication of subsequent versions of the Reviewed Preprint, and publication of the Version of Record (at the authors’ request). Authors who cannot afford the fee can request a full waiver.

Questions relating to our publication fee are addressed below.

I can’t afford the fee. What can I do?

It is very important that a publication fee does not inhibit the submission of excellent work from labs with insufficient access to funds. We will grant a waiver for labs under financial pressure – whether because of the local economy, career stage, or a lack of funding.

How can I pay?

The publication fee can be paid by wire transfer, credit card, or cheque (but please note that we can only accept cheques in US Dollars drawn on a US bank).

Will my ability to pay influence the consideration of my paper?

No. Editors have no knowledge of waiver requests or financial arrangements. Ability to pay will have no bearing on the outcome of your submission.

What article types are affected?

The publication fee applies to Research Articles, Short Reports, Tools and Resources, and Research Advances. There is not a publication fee for Feature Articles, Review Articles, or Scientific Correspondence.

I’m funded by the same funders as eLife. Will I have to pay?

Yes. The fee will apply to all research papers including those with investigators associated with the Howard Hughes Medical Institute, the Max Planck Society, the Wellcome Trust and the Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation. The generous support of these organisations will help us cover the balance of our publishing costs (our fixed costs) and enable us to invest in technology and innovation.

What do I get in return for my fee?

eLife delivers a high-quality, comprehensive service to authors, which includes:

• Preprint deposition for rapid communication – Our team will facilitate deposit of preprints if the submission is being peer reviewed and the authors have not already done so.
• Peer review – Our editorial process combines the immediacy and openness of preprints with the scrutiny of peer review by experts.
• Support for transparent reporting – Our editorial team works with authors to facilitate transparent reporting of protocols, resources, materials, data and code.
• Fast publication – Authors have their Reviewed Preprint published within a few weeks of the review process being completed.
• High-quality, machine-readable online presentation of articles – eLife maintains the highest standards for online presentation of the version of record in XML, supporting a frictionless user experience and facilitating the wide distribution of findings across the world. Content from eLife is accessible through all significant abstracting and indexing services in the fields of biology and medicine (including PubMed for the version of record).
• Enhanced online reading experience – eLife invests in new ways of displaying content, for example with a side-by-side view and Executable Research Articles, which integrate data, interactive figures and executable code directly into the text of their articles.
• Wide, global readership – We help eLife authors reach the widest possible audiences with their work, via expert commentaries (“Insights”), plain-language summaries (eLife “Digests"), interviews, podcasts, press releases, and social media.

Any questions not addressed here may be sent to eLife via fees [at] elifesciences [dot] org

Waiver policy

eLife recognises that there are various circumstances in which the authors of an eLife article might not have access to sufficient funds to cover the publication fee. To ensure that eLife’s publication fee is not a barrier to publication we therefore offer a simple way for authors to apply for a fee waiver.

Authors are expected to have explored all reasonable sources for paying the publication fee and may apply for a fee waiver during the submission process. Waiver requests are considered on a case-by-case basis and should be accompanied by a brief justification from the author.

The information that authors provide to support their waiver application will offer valuable insights into the availability of funds for publication fees. There are no strict criteria for a fee waiver because of the variety of circumstances that might lead to insufficient funds being available, such as: lack of support from the funder or institution, termination of a grant, career stage, geographic location, or a discipline with less funding.

All waiver requests will be treated confidentially.

eLife academic editors and reviewers have no access to information about waiver requests, which can therefore never influence the outcome of a submission.

Refund policy

We place great importance on giving authors a prompt, fair and responsive service. However, if our service falls far short of an acceptable standard, we may refund the publication fee upon request.

Media Policy

eLife’s media policy is designed to encourage high-quality, informed and widespread discussion of research that we peer-review and publish.

Presenting and discussing work prior to publication

eLife only peer-reviews and publishes articles that are made publicly available as preprints. This means that, prior to review and publication, authors are free to present their findings to their peers, including at meetings and conferences. Authors are also welcome to speak to the media about their work at any time and may share their preprint with journalists as they prefer. They may also wish to ask their institutional press officers to help with advance promotion of their journal article or, under our new model, their Reviewed Preprint. However, eLife encourages press officers to pitch studies widely at the time of publication only, rather than in advance, so that as many journalists as possible receive the story, and access to the peer-reviewed eLife paper or Reviewed Preprint, at the same time.

Our policy not to embargo eLife papers

Because eLife only peer-reviews articles that are already publicly available as preprints, we do not release our content under embargo. This means that journalists can write and publish articles about an eLife paper or Reviewed Preprint at any time without breaking an embargo. However, we strongly recommend that their stories are published at the time of or after publication, so that readers have access to the peer-reviewed version of the paper.

Making content widely accessible

In our traditional model, many eLife papers are published with a plain-language summary (called an eLife digest) to explain the background and central findings of the work to a broad readership. We also publish the most substantive parts of the decision letter that is sent to authors after peer review (and which is based on the referees' reports on the paper), along with the authors' response to this letter, to provide greater context for the work. In our new model, Reviewed Preprints are published alongside the public reviews and an eLife assessment that reflects the significance of the findings and the strength of the evidence reported in the preprint. Author responses are also included where available. Where eLife considers papers to be of potential interest to a broad audience, we will also promote these widely to the media and to interested readers either on the day of publication or post publication.

More information for institutional press officers and journalists is available here.

Journal FAQs

What is a Reviewed Preprint?

Once a preprint has been peer-reviewed by eLife, we publish a Reviewed Preprint: this includes the full text of the preprint, the eLife assessment, the public peer reviews, and (if the authors wish) a response from the authors. Reviewed Preprints will receive a DOI and eLife citation.

When will the Reviewed Preprint be posted?

The Reviewed Preprint will typically be posted on the eLife website within two weeks of the conclusion of the peer-review process (although authors can request to have it posted sooner).

What is an eLife assessment?

An eLife assessment is a concise assessment of the significance of the findings and the strength of the evidence reported in a preprint. When writing the eLife assessment, the editors and reviewers will use a common vocabulary to make the process more consistent. This approach will provide readers with an assessment of the work that is richer and more nuanced than that previously conveyed by the statement “published in eLife” (read more).

What if there are factual errors in the reviews?

Authors should alert the editorial office as soon as possible upon receiving the public reviews if there are any factual errors, or any other significant concerns about their contents, so that they can be discussed and corrected before being posted online.

If authors do not agree with the eLife assessment or public reviews, can they withdraw or prevent the public reviews being posted?

The focus of our peer review and editorial process is the production of substantive, constructive assessments and public peer reviews. By entering into the review process, authors agree to have an eLife assessment and public reviews posted online as a Reviewed Preprint. However, authors can ask for any factual errors in the eLife assessment or public reviews to be corrected before publication. The authors can also provide responses to accompany the public reviews.

What happens if major errors are identified during or after the review process?

In rare cases, if the findings of the preprint are found to be unreliable during the review process, the authors can withdraw their preprint in accordance with the rules of the server where their preprint was posted. Authors are required to initiate withdrawal of the preprint within 14 days of the issue being identified. In such cases, we will not proceed with publication of the Reviewed Preprint unless there are exceptional reasons to publish the public reviews.

If the findings are found to be unreliable after publication of the Reviewed Preprint (or Version of Record), the authors should contact the journal office to discuss a Correction or Retraction in the usual way.

Will we peer review all submissions?

No. We do not have the capacity to review everything, so we still ask Reviewing Editors if they are willing to handle submissions. Instead of asking them if they think the findings of the paper are potentially significant, we now ask them if they believe that having eLife public reviews of the preprint will be of value to a broad community and if we have the appropriate expertise on our editorial board to generate high-quality peer reviews of the work.

eLife reserves the right to suspend or terminate the review process in cases where we cannot provide high-quality public reviews (in which case the authors will be refunded any fees already paid).

Can authors submit a revision?

Of course. We welcome revisions that respond to the review process, and will decide whether to re-review any revisions and publish an updated Reviewed Preprint along with updated peer reviews and an eLife assessment.

Do I have to submit a revision?

No. If the authors are comfortable with the current version of their manuscript and our peer reviews and evaluation, they do not need to submit a revision.

What is a “VOR”?

At any point after peer review by eLife, authors can ask to have the most recent eLife Reviewed Preprint declared the “Version of Record” (VOR). The VOR will be identical to the most recent Reviewed Preprint, outside of minor changes that do not affect the scientific content. The VOR will be expected to meet more stringent policies and standards around ethics and data availability.

The publication of a VOR also marks the formal end of eLife’s peer review process for the work, and is therefore akin to a traditional journal paper. VORs are typically indexed by a variety of services, such as DOAJ, Google Scholar, PubMed, PubMed Central, Europe PMC, Scopus and Web of Science. Each indexing service applies different criteria to what they will include, so we cannot guarantee that a VOR will be indexed by all of these services. VORs are archived in CLOCKSS.

Can I submit my paper somewhere else following peer review by eLife?

As far as eLife is concerned, authors can do anything with their paper that they want to. It is their paper, not ours. This includes, but is not limited to, having their work assessed by another journal on the basis of eLife reviews, although we expect most authors will not find this necessary or desirable. Please note that an eLife Version of Record is considered a regular journal article, which marks the end of the publishing process.

Do authors need to have posted a preprint before submission to eLife?

No, authors can still submit to eLife without having posted a preprint. During submission, we will ask if the work has been posted as a preprint. If not, authors can provide information to facilitate posting a preprint by staff, should eLife decide to proceed with a public peer review process.

What will be the fee for a Reviewed Preprint?

There is a fee of $2,000, charged at the point that a preprint is sent for peer review. This includes the cost of the initial evaluation, staff checks, peer review, the publication of a Reviewed Preprint online, re-review, publication of subsequent versions of the Reviewed Preprint, and publication of the VOR (at the authors’ request). Authors who cannot afford the fee can request a full waiver as before.

How do readers cite a Reviewed Preprint or VOR?

The DOI and citation details are included on each Reviewed Preprint and VOR. We assign DOIs for content published under the new model as follows:

• Version DOI: a DOI that’s specific to each version of an article. The relevant version DOI should be used when citing an article.
• Umbrella DOI: A DOI that is updated throughout the process and resolves to the latest version. These can be included in grant proposals or job applications, and used in searches at indexers.
• Peer review DOIs: peer reviews are assigned their own DOIs, allowing them to be cited separately.

Will funders recognise a Reviewed Preprint in my grant application?

Funders and other research organisations are embracing Reviewed Preprints as an alternative way to assess researchers (read more). Among these supporters are cOAlition S, the Gates Foundation, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI), Knut and Alice Wallenberg Foundation, and Wellcome. cOAlition S explicitly states that “peer reviewed publications – defined here as scholarly papers that have been subject to a journal-independent standard peer review process with an implicit or explicit validation – are considered by most cOAlition S organisations to be of equivalent merit and status as peer-reviewed publications that are published in a recognised journal or on a platform.” As an example, peer-reviewed preprints are recognized as eligibility criterion for EMBO Postdoctoral Fellowships.

Does eLife support the impact factor?

We do not track, support or promote the impact factor. We are a co-founder of the Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA), and we strongly support the shift away from using journal-based metrics in research assessment (see Reforming research assessment).

Which preprint servers will authors be able to use?

We encourage authors to use bioRxiv or medRxiv but we can support any recognised preprint server that supports versioning..

Will there be any grounds on which authors cannot opt for a VOR?

To be considered for a VOR, authors must first have a Reviewed Preprint by eLife, and they must agree to adhere to eLife’s author guide and policies (for example around the availability of data, code, and materials). After eLife has confirmed the Reviewed Preprint meets these criteria, we will publish a VOR (after author proofing), except in rare cases, for example where we determine that doing so would constitute a threat to public health or safety.

How long do authors have to request a VOR?

A VOR should usually be submitted within 12 months of the Reviewed Preprint or revised Reviewed Preprint being posted. Authors with a Reviewed Preprint who do not intend to submit an eLife VOR should let us know. If authors would like to be considered for an eLife VOR after 12 months have elapsed, they should contact us to discuss the circumstances.

Where will Reviewed Preprints and Versions of Record be indexed?

Reviewed Preprints will be indexed by Google Scholar. VORs are typically indexed by a variety of services, such as DOAJ, Google Scholar, PubMed, PubMed Central, Europe PMC, Scopus and Web of Science. Each indexing service applies different criteria to what they will include, so we cannot guarantee that a VOR will be indexed by all of these services. VORs are archived in CLOCKSS.

Will you pay peer reviewers?

No. We offer remuneration to our editors but not to our peer reviewers, although we do recognise that peer review is time consuming and a valuable service to the community.

Will reviewer names be posted alongside the Reviewed Preprint or VOR?

All public comments posted alongside a preprint will be signed by eLife and not by individuals, putting the onus on eLife as an organisation and community to ensure that the outputs of our peer-review process are of the highest standard.

Reviewers will still have the option of being named to the authors after peer review.

How will authors be able to correct or retract a Reviewed Preprint or VOR, if necessary?

Reviewed Preprints: if there are grounds for retraction (usually because there is clear evidence that the findings are unreliable), authors should contact the preprint server to request a withdrawal, and alert the editorial office (editorial [at] elifesciences [dot] org). Sometimes there may be grounds for eLife to initiate a retraction process, in which case this will be discussed with the authors. Important corrections can be made to a Reviewed Preprint by updating or revising their preprint, and requesting re-review.

Versions of Record: if there are grounds for correction or retraction, please contact the editorial office. Authors are also asked to contact the preprint server to request a withdrawal. Important corrections can be considered to the VOR in some circumstances: please contact the production office to discuss this further (production [at] elifesciences [dot] org).

Can existing authors switch from the previous review process to the new one?

No, in fairness to editors and reviewers who have spent time on a submission in one process (that ends in acceptance or rejection), authors in eLife’s previous review process (that ends in acceptance or rejection) will not be able to switch to use the new model. This applies to papers submitted before January 31, 2023 that are under active consideration and to ones rejected after peer review in the previous process. For authors who have papers under consideration prior to January 31, 2023, there is no time limit by which the process needs to be completed.

Can authors still ask to use eLife’s review process that ends in acceptance or rejection?

We want as many authors as possible to benefit from eLife’s new model. However, in fairness to authors who were preparing submissions to eLife when we announced the changes, we will still allow submissions into the previous review process, resulting in acceptance or rejection after review. Please click “Submit Your Research” from eLife’s homepage for further information (or email the editorial office at editorial [at] elifesciences [dot] org).

If I make a submission to eLife and a paper on a similar topic has recently been published in a peer-reviewed journal, will the other paper influence the treatment of my submission to eLife?

The editors always take the existing literature into account when deciding which submissions are sent for peer review, so situations like this are dealt with on a case-by-case basis. However, eLife does not subscribe to a 'winner-takes-all' philosophy, and does not automatically decline to review papers because they are not 'first' (please see Malhotra and Marder, 2015 and Marder, 2017).

Does eLife offer "scoop protection"?

eLife does offer "scoop protection" in the sense that we will not decline to peer review your submission on the grounds that it lacks novelty because a paper on a similar topic has been published in another peer-reviewed journal or posted as a preprint. We also wish to emphasise the following aspect of our scoop protection policy: if our editors consider that work has been done simultaneously by multiple groups, we will not consider any of the groups’ efforts to have been rendered less significant by the posting of work from another. However, it is still possible that we decide not to proceed with peer review on other grounds.

If I make a submission to eLife and a preprint on a similar topic is subsequently posted on a recognized preprint server, will that preprint influence the evaluation of my submission to eLife?

As in the previous case, a decision not to proceed with peer review will not be made on the grounds that it lacks novelty because of the preprint. However, it is still possible that we do not proceed with peer review on other grounds.

If I make a submission to eLife and a manuscript on a similar topic is already being reviewed by eLife, will the other manuscript influence the evaluation of my submission to eLife?

As in the previous case, we will not decline to peer review your submission on the grounds that it lacks novelty because of the other manuscript. However, it is still possible that we will decline to peer review the work on other grounds.

If my submission to eLife attracts negative or critical feedback (e.g.,, in the form of comments and/or other preprints), will this feedback influence the evaluation of my submission?

Public feedback on the work (positive or negative) might be taken into account if it arises during the review process. You are advised to be open about the existence of such feedback and bring it to the attention of the editors.

Can I cite a preprint in my submission to eLife?

Yes, providing it has been posted on a recognised public preprint server and has a persistent ID. Preprints should be cited as follows:

Author(s). Year. Title. Name of preprint server. doi or url

For example:

• Narasimhan VM et al. 2016. A direct multi-generational estimate of the human mutation rate from autozygous segments seen in thousands of parentally related individuals. bioRxiv. doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/059436
• Chung J, Gulcehre C, Cho K, Bengio Y. 2014. Empirical evaluation of gated recurrent neural networks on sequence modeling. arXiv. http://arxiv.abs/1412.3555

Do you accept presubmission inquiries?

No, rather than advise on suitability based on an abstract, we ask that you submit online, so that the complete paper can be considered in a timely manner by the appropriate editors. In the case of queries about potential Review Articles, please see the article types section.

Can I reproduce a figure from an eLife article?

eLife articles are published under a Creative Commons Attribution license (unless specified otherwise) that permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited. Therefore you do not need to seek permission to reproduce an original figure from an eLife paper, but please cite the original author and source, and include the link to the corresponding license. If there are restrictions on the use/reuse of a figure, these will be noted in the legend.

Can I use text, figures, and tables from the paper I published in eLife in a thesis or dissertation?

Yes, you can. Please include a reference to the eLife paper and include a statement to say that the eLife article is distributed under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution License that permits unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

I would like to reproduce a figure from a previously published article in an eLife submission. What should I do?

It is fine to include figures that have been published under a Creative Commons Attribution license; please cite the original author and source, and include a link to the corresponding licence. In other cases, please seek permission from the copyright holder to reuse the figure under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution licence.