Publication of any material in F1000Research denotes that all its authors have agreed to its content and have ensured that F1000Research’s policies have been fully adhered to. Non-compliance with these policies may mean that an article cannot be published.
If an article is accepted for publication by F1000Research, F1000Research will publish your article on the F1000Research website in advance of any peer review being performed on the article. We seek to ensure that the content we produce, publish and for which we provide a platform is responsible, and has been selected and produced without bias. We respect the intellectual property rights of our contributors and seek to avoid unethical publishing behaviors, which are not in line with our policies, including but not limited to, plagiarism, fabrication, defamation, and misinformation.
Our Publication Terms and Conditions set out the publishing standards by which we operate. We require that all work
The acceptability of any article shall be decided by F1000Research at its discretion, taking into account F1000Research policies. F1000Research reserves the right, at its discretion, to not proceed with publication at any time or to remove the Content following publication, including but not limited to, if there are legal or ethical concerns with the article.
F1000Research strongly discourages excessive or inappropriate self-citation.
Articles previously posted on a preprint server, such as ArXiv, bioRxiv, agriRxiv or PeerJ PrePrints can be submitted for publication in F1000Research. Posters and slides already posted on F1000Research can be written up as articles, following our article guidelines, and submitted to F1000Research.
Submitted articles with content that infringes copyright may be rejected if the problematic sections cannot be removed.
Authors who wish to reproduce a figure or table from a previous copyrighted publication are responsible for obtaining the permission of copyright holders and for clearly referencing the original source. Figures that were previously published under a creative commons license may be reused under the condition of the specific license that applies to those figures.
However, articles on F1000Research must represent scholarly work that is suitable for formal peer review, so only authors formally affiliated with an accredited institution or recognised organization are able to publish. An objective requirement for publication of an article presenting research is therefore primarily based on affiliation, as outlined below. (Please note that some gateways have more specific criteria (e.g. a requirement for authors to be affiliated with a specific organisation); details can be found in each gateway under “About this gateway”.)
Publication criteria for research outputs presenting original data and results:
Authors must be aware that using AI-based tools and technologies for article content generation, e.g. large language models (LLMs), generative AI, and chatbots (e.g. ChatGPT), is not in line with our authorship criteria. All authors are wholly responsible for the originality, validity and integrity of the content of their submissions. Therefore, LLMs and other similar types of tools do not meet the criteria for authorship.
Publication of Reviews and Opinion articles
F1000Research encourages open, scholarly review and debate of research findings, trends and topics that are of direct relevance to researchers in the form of Reviews and Opinion articles. Submissions of this type must represent a useful addition to the scientific literature and must be presented in a format that is suitable for peer review. While researchers who meet the criteria outlined above are entitled to publish any article presenting new research and data, the decision of whether a submitted review or opinion article is suitable for publication and subsequent open peer review by experts, ultimately lies with F1000Research's Editorial Director.
Editorials are published by invitation only.
CRediT
All authors should have made a clear contribution to the published article. As a guide, authors should refer to the criteria for authorship that have been developed by The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Each author's contribution must be detailed by selecting CRediT roles on the article submission form.
Anyone who has contributed but does not meet the criteria for authorship (for example, purely technical or writing assistance) should be listed in the 'Acknowledgments' section. The involvement of any professional scientific or medical writer assistance must be declared. Authors should obtain permission to include the name and affiliation, from all those mentioned in the Acknowledgments section.
Any assistance from AI tools for content generation (e.g. LLMs) and other similar types of technical tools which generate article content, must be clearly acknowledged within the article. It is the responsibility of authors to ensure the validity, originality and integrity of their article content. Authors are expected to use these types of tools responsibly and in accordance with our editorial policies on authorship and principles of publishing ethics.
Correspondence with authors: If an author requires a change to the article, the editorial office will require confirmation of the identification of the individual. Usually, this will be via sending an email using the email address that F1000Research has stored on the system. If this is no longer possible, please contact the editorial team, who will be able to assist with confirmation of identification.
Changes in authorship: 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. Any changes in authorship must be confirmed by all authors. If the editorial team is unable to contact an author, the corresponding author is responsible for facilitating communication. In agreement with COPE guidelines, the editorial team cannot take responsibility for resolving any disputes over authorship; any disagreements amongst the authors must be settled by the authors’ institution(s).
Changes to author names: F1000Research understands that authors, reviewers or commenters may wish to change their names for many reasons, including gender identity recognition, marriage, divorce and other personal reasons. Following a name change request, the editorial office will require confirmation of the identification of the individual, as per all communications with authors, as we will need to check you are requesting the name change on your own behalf. To avoid any distress this process may cause, F1000Research is keen to work with researchers to enable them to provide identification on their own terms. We do not require legal or official proof of a name change.
Researchers should note that the corresponding author will be contacted to make them aware that a name change has taken place. Researchers may wish to inform their co-authors of the change, for example so that they use an updated offline copy or change the way they cite the publication. Or researchers can rely on a notification from us to the corresponding author alone and the updated online version. Please inform us if we should wait until a particular date to enact the name change to give researchers time to communicate with co-authors if desired. If there are any reasons that the corresponding researcher should not be contacted, please let us know.
For articles, any change of name will not require a new version of the article to be created; all existing versions will be edited to reflect the change and the DOI will remain the same. A Notice of Change will not be posted to articles unless requested by the researcher; if requested, the following standard text will be used: ‘A name change in the author list of this article was requested. The change was implemented on <date>’.
If an article is indexed, F1000Research will exert all efforts to ensure that the change is propagated to indexer websites. However, please note that F1000Research cannot control the use or appearance on third party websites.
Please note that F1000Research considers it a violation of publishing and personal ethics to request to change the name of another individual without their explicit consent. If an author, reviewer or commenter requires a name change, please contact the editorial office. To protect the identify and personal data of the researcher requesting the name change, all correspondence will be treated in confidence, only team members that are required to implement the name change will be made aware, and the information will not be used for any use apart from name change implementation.
A competing interest may be of non-financial or financial nature. Examples of competing interests include (but are not limited to):
The International Society for Medical Publication Professionals provides good practice guidelines, which are aimed at ensuring that “clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies are published in a responsible and ethical manner”.
Reviewers are also required to declare any competing interests in their reports, as are readers who contribute comments on the site.
If an undisclosed competing interest is brought to the attention of the editorial office after publication, F1000Research will follow the COPE guidelines.
Human studies categorized by race/ethnicity, age, disease/disabilities, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, or other socially constructed groupings, should include a justification of the choice of definitions and categories, including whether any rules of human categorization were required by the relevant funding agencies. Appropriate non-stigmatizing language should be used when describing different groups.
Ethics approval must be obtained before the research is conducted; retrospective approval can usually not be obtained and it may not be possible to publish the study.
Consent to participate: For all studies involving human participants, including personal genomics studies, case reports, clinical trials, questionnaires, observations etc, informed written consent to take part in the research must have been obtained, and this should be stated in the article in a section entitled ‘Consent’. If only oral consent was obtained (rather than written), the reasons need to be explained, confirmation of IRB approval that oral consent was adequate must be provided, and a statement of how it was documented included in the Consent section.
Consent for publication of identifiable data: For any articles that include information that could potentially identify an individual, please ensure that you have obtained written, informed consent from all patients or healthy participants (or their legal guardians for minors, or next of kin if the participant is deceased), confirming that the results and any accompanying images can be published. This includes large clinical datasets with direct or indirect identifiers (see this article for information), specific details about individuals, images and so on.
If your article contains any identifiable images of individuals, you must include a statement confirming that you have permission to publish these images. If your article contains any clinical images or identifiable data then you must include an explicit consent statement under a separate heading of the ‘Consent’ section (we suggest: “We confirm that we have obtained permission to use [images/data] from the participants/patients/individuals included in this presentation”). Please also state the conditions under which the permission was obtained.
Alternatively, if no consent for publication was required (e.g. the data has been anonymised), then this should be clearly stated and a note should be added confirming that such alterations have not distorted scientific meaning.
Signed consent forms should be made available to the F1000Research editorial office if requested.
Experiments involving vertebrates or regulated invertebrates must be carried out within the ethical guidelines provided by the authors’ institution and national or international regulations. Where applicable, a statement of ethics permission granted or animal licenses should be included. If animals were used but ethical approval was not required, a clear statement should be included stating why this approval was unnecessary.
In all cases, a statement should be made to confirm that all efforts were made to ameliorate any suffering of animals and details of how this was achieved should be provided.
Authors should comply with the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
Photographic images published in F1000Research should accurately reflect the original image. As such, we require that all images, whether submitted as figures or uploaded as data, are not manipulated so that readers are not misled about what the images indicate. We understand that it is standard practice to use software to modify images to make them clearer and easier to interpret. However, any modifications that are made to images should be minor and must be made uniformly to the whole image.
Modifications that alter the scientific meaning of the image, whether conducted on specific regions or the whole image, are not permitted. Where parts of the same gel are spliced together, this should be indicated on the figures with a dividing line, making it clear where the image has been joined. Areas from different gels should not be spliced together. Where loading controls are present, these should always be included in the image; if spliced together, any modifications to the loading control and area of interest must be identical.
Authors are required to include details of all modifications made to images published as figures or uploaded as data in the Methods section of an article, including the name of the software (with version number) used to make these modifications.
Examples of improper image manipulation are well described in an article in the Journal of Cell Biology (Rossner & Yamada, 2004), published by the Rockefeller University Press.
We also require the original, uncropped, unannotated and unprocessed versions of all gel and micrograph images, which we consider underlying data, to be deposited to an approved online repository (see our Data Guidelines for further details on depositing your data).
The Editorial Team will conduct checks of random selected figures and data using ImageTwin. In line with COPE guidelines, where images suspected of improper manipulation are detected, clarification with the authors will be sought. Where the reasons for these suspected manipulations are not explained satisfactorily, the article is likely to be rejected and the authors’ institution may be contacted.
“A clinical trial is any research study that prospectively assigns human participants or groups of humans to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate the effects on health outcomes. Interventions include (but are not restricted to) drugs, cells and other biological products, surgical procedures, radiologic procedures, devices, behavioural treatments, process-of-care changes, preventive care, etc”.
Trials should be registered prospectively and the trial registration number and registration date must be included in the article. Further information can be found at the ICMJE faq on trial registration and the WHO provides a list of approved registries.
Although we expect trials to be registered before patient recruitment starts, several initiatives (such as the AllTrials campaign) have recognized that retrospective trial registration will encourage publication of both positive and negative results, and trials that were conducted before registration was possible. In line with these initiatives, F1000Research will consider retrospectively registered trials, provided an explanation for the late registration is provided in the article. Again, the trial registration number and date of registration must be included in the Methods section of the article.
Specifically, articles in F1000Research that report clinical trials must adhere to the CONSORT reporting guidelines. We ask authors to include a copy of the original trial protocol and a completed CONSORT checklist and flow diagram as supporting files, which will be published alongside the article. The trial registration number and registration date must be included in the Methods section. Any deviation from the original trial protocol must be explained in the article.
Articles that report systematic reviews must adhere to the PRISMA guidelines, and authors should also include a completed PRISMA checklist and flow diagram as supporting files. Study protocols of systematic reviews must adhere to the PRISMA-P guidelines. We ask authors to include a completed PRISMA-P checklist.
Articles that report in vivo experiments involving animals must adhere to the ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines, and authors should also include a completed checklist which should be uploaded to a repository as extended data. The ARRIVE Essential 10 must be fully reported in the manuscript and a completed checklist provided, and we encourage authors to conform to the full ARRIVE 2.0 guidelines.
Where completed reporting checklist are required, a copy should be uploaded to an online repository as extended data. Details of the repository, the DOI and license should be included in the Data Availability statement under the heading ‘Reporting Guidelines’. As the online version of your article will not have page numbers please use section names rather than page numbers when completing the checklist.
Data availability
All articles in F1000Research that report original results should provide access to all research data underlying the results, together with details of any software used to process the results. It is essential that others can see the data to ensure that your research and methods are transparent and that your results can be reproduced, where relevant.
Failure to provide access to the research data without good justification is likely to result in the article being rejected. For detailed information about the type of datasets that authors need to include when publishing an article in F1000Research, where the datasets can be stored, and how they should be presented, see our data guidelines.
We recognize that there may be cases where openly sharing data may not be feasible (because of copyright, ethical or security considerations, or data protection issues). If you think that this applies to your article, please let the editorial team know at the submission stage, as we have policies in place to allow the publication of papers associated with such data, while maintaining the appropriate level of security.
We expect all qualitative and quantitative data to be shared in English. If your dataset is not currently available in English, please contact the editorial team.
Exceptions to the policy on data availability may be made for:
If data access is restricted for ethical or security reasons, the manuscript must include:
Where human data cannot be effectively de-identified, data must not be shared in order to protect patient/participant privacy unless the individuals have given explicit written consent that their identifiable data can be made publicly available.
In instances where the data cannot be made available, the manuscript must include:
Where data has been obtained from social media sites, we ask that authors do not share this data due to ethical and copyright restrictions. This includes reproductions of the data in the manuscript, e.g. images of representative posts, unless you have explicit written informed consent to publish from the author of the social media post. The manuscript should include:
If you are using data from Twitter, you are permitted to share the Tweet IDs or User IDs in a dataset. This allows others to ‘hydrate’ (get complete details of) these IDs using Twitter’s API. Datasets containing Tweet/User IDs should be uploaded as per our data guidelines under a CC0 Public Domain Dedication, or a CC-BY 4.0 Creative Commons Attribution Only license.
It is not always feasible to share large data sets. In these cases, authors should include a description of the data, including the file types and sizes, when submitting their manuscript. The editorial team can then advise on hosting.
Where data is too large to be feasibly hosted by a recommended repository, the manuscript should include:
In cases where data has been obtained from a third party and restrictions apply to the availability of the data, the manuscript must include:
In cases where data from human studies has been obtained from government level organisations (e.g. a Ministry of Health), and strict restrictions regarding availability of the data apply, the authors must include a clear explanation about the restrictions, and all the necessary information required for a reader or reviewer to request access from the data owners. This option will be discussed with authors on a case-by-case basis and can only be considered if there are no discernible competing interests, especially if these are commercial in nature.
Proprietary software
Where third party proprietary software has been used, an open source alternative must be provided in the article to allow for the replication of the analysis or research by all readers. Please check Alternativeto.net to identify available open source alternatives.
Exceptions may be made if the chosen proprietary software performs specific functions and there is no open source alternative that can carry out these functions in the same manner.
If this applies to your article, your manuscript should include:
Data associated with F1000Research articles are made available, where possible, under the terms of a Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication (CC0 license). This facilitates and encourages re-use and helps prevent the problems of attribution stacking when combining multiple datasets each authored by multiple authors that use multiple different licenses.
Peer review reports that are published with a given article are also available under the CC BY license.
All content, including articles that have not (yet) passed peer review, is permanently archived in Portico. All versions of all articles that have passed peer review will be archived in PubMed, Scopus and elsewhere.
Authors can revise, change and update their articles by publishing new versions, which are added to the article’s history; however, the individual versions, once published, cannot be altered or withdrawn and are permanently available on the F1000Research website. F1000Research participates in the CrossMark scheme, a multi-publisher initiative that has developed a standard way for readers to locate the current version of an article. By applying the CrossMark policies, F1000Research is committed to maintaining the content it publishes and to alerting readers to changes if and when they occur.
Clicking on the CrossMark logo (at the top of each F1000Research article) will give you the current status of an article and direct you to the latest published version; it may also give you additional information such as new peer review reports.
In order to maintain the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record, the following policies will be applied when published content needs to be corrected; these policies take into account current best practice in the scholarly publishing and library communities:
By contrast, articles in F1000Research undergo peer review post publication and publication is not ‘final’ as new versions can be added at any stage. Possible mistakes that come to light during the peer review process may be highlighted in the published peer review reports, which are part of the article. Authors can publish revised versions, and any errors that become apparent during peer review or later can be corrected through the publication of new versions. Corrections and changes relative to the previous version are always summarized in the ‘Amendments’ section at the start of a new version.
An article is usually only retracted at the authors’ request or by the publisher in response to an institutional investigation. It is important to note in the context of F1000Research’s publication model, that ‐ as in traditional journals ‐ a retracted article is not ‘unpublished’ or ‘withdrawn’ in order for it to be published elsewhere. The reasons for retraction are usually so serious that the whole study, or large parts of it, are not appropriate for inclusion in the scientific literature anywhere.
The content of a retracted article would only be removed where legal limitations have been placed upon the publisher, copyright holder or author(s), for example, if the article is clearly defamatory or infringes others’ legal rights, or if the article is the subject of a court order. In such cases, the bibliographic information for the article will be retained on the site along with information regarding the circumstances that led to the removal of the content.
Under rare circumstances, for example, if false or inaccurate data have been published that, if acted upon, pose a serious health risk, the original incorrect version(s) may be removed and a corrected version published. The reason for this partial removal would be clearly stated on the latest version.
If a case of suspected research or publication misconduct is brought to our attention, we will follow the guidance and workflows recommended by COPE. In the first instance this will usually involve contacting the person/persons about whom the allegations have been raised to request an explanation. We may also need to contact the involved party's research institution, an ethics committee or other third parties.
Research misconduct includes data fabrication or falsification, or cases where research involving animals or humans has not been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. Publication misconduct includes duplicate publication of articles or clear plagiarism. Honest errors or differences of opinion are not considered ‘misconduct’.
If you suspect potential misconduct in an article published on F1000Research, please contact the F1000 editorial office ([email protected]) - a member of the editorial team will contact you within 10 working days to confirm the details that you have provided and ask any additional questions needed for us to investigate. Please be aware that it may not be possible to keep you updated throughout the process, however we will endeavour to let you know the outcome where appropriate.
Comments should focus on the scholarly content presented in the article with which they are associated.
Comments that appear to be advertising, are potentially libelous or legally problematic (including comments revealing patient information) are not permitted. We will not accept Comments that are offensive, indecent or contain negative comments of a personal, racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, or religious character.
All Comments must be written in good English; a Comment may be rejected if it is deemed unintelligible.
Readers who wish to comment on an article are asked to declare any competing interests. Competing interests can be of a financial nature (e.g. holding a patent or receiving fees from a company that may lose or gain financially from the publication of the Comment), or they can be personal, religious, political or other non-financial interests. When completing your declaration, please consider the issues summarized in the Declaration of Competing Interests.
While we welcome open scientific debate and discussion, we will not tolerate abusive behaviour 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 behaviour of individuals.
More information is available on Peer review process for articles section of the How it Works page.
Revisions and updates are published as new versions, with clear explanations (in an “Amendments” section) of the changes the authors made.
Usually, an article receives 2 or 3 peer review reports. The reviewers choose an approval status, which contributes to determining whether the article has ‘passed peer review’ and is indexed in bibliographic databases, such as PubMed.
Articles with 0 or 1 report have not passed peer review and are not indexed in PubMed, Scopus and other bibliographic databases; if peer review is stopped in consultation with the F1000Research team, the article (which is permanently published with a DOI and cannot be removed) can be considered equivalent to a preprint and the authors may choose to submit the manuscript to a journal for peer review and publication elsewhere (it is at the discretion of the journal editors the authors are submitting to how they consider the history of the article at F1000Research).
To achieve this, we ask that guest advisors work within a Code of Conduct, as follows:
Guest advisors that do not uphold the Code of Conduct may have their appointment terminated and further action may be taken in line with our misconduct policies.
Publication of any material in F1000Research denotes that all its authors have agreed to its content and have ensured that F1000Research’s policies have been fully adhered to; adherence to sections 1-4 is compulsory for posters, slides and documents; sections 5 and 6 are strongly encouraged as they present good scientific practice and publishing standards.
We seek to ensure that the posters, slides and documents we publish and for which we provide a platform are responsible and have been selected and produced without bias. We respect the intellectual property rights of our contributors and seek to avoid unethical publishing behaviors, which are not in line with our policies, including but not limited to, plagiarism, fabrication, defamation, and misinformation.
Our Publication Terms and Conditions set out the publishing standards by which we operate. We require that all work sets out to be fair and accurate, clearly differentiates between fact and opinion, is obtained by legitimate and ethical means, is evidence-based, and shall be promptly corrected (where appropriate) or withdrawn if it is subsequently found to be dangerous, inaccurate or misleading.
The acceptability of any poster, slide or document shall be decided by F1000Research at its discretion. F1000Research reserves the right, at its discretion, to not proceed with publication at any time or to remove the poster, slide or document following publication, including but not limited to, if there are legal or ethical concerns.
Authors of posters, slides and documents must ensure that they do not breach copyright with any content they post. Authors who wish to reproduce a figure or table from a previous copyrighted publication are responsible for obtaining the permission of copyright holders and for clearly referencing the original source. Figures that were previously published under a creative commons license may be reused under the condition of the specific license that applies to those figures.
Any poster or slide whose author’s affiliation is a recognized research centre or clinical institution or organization clearly related to academic research can be posted. At least one author on the poster or slide must meet this key criterion.
Documents always relate to specific gateways and usually only researchers who are directly affiliated with a gateway and have been invited by the gateway advisers will be able to publish documents.
A competing interest may be of non-financial or financial nature. Examples of competing interests include (but are not limited to):
The International Society for Medical Publication Professionals provides good practice guidelines, which are aimed at ensuring that “clinical trials sponsored by pharmaceutical companies are published in a responsible and ethical manner”.
Readers who contribute comments on a poster, slide or document are also required to declare any competing interests.
If an undisclosed competing interest is brought to the attention of the editorial office after publication, F1000Research will follow the COPE guidelines.
Human studies categorized by race/ethnicity, age, disease/disabilities, religion, sex/gender, sexual orientation, or other socially constructed groupings, should include a justification of the choice of definitions and categories, including whether any rules of human categorization were required by the relevant funding agencies. Appropriate non-stigmatizing language should be used when describing different groups.
Ethics approval must be obtained before the research is conducted; retrospective approval can usually not be obtained and it may not be possible to publish the study.
Consent to participate: For all studies involving human participants, informed written consent to take part in the research must have been obtained, and this should be stated in the poster, slides or document in a section entitled ‘Consent’. If only oral consent was obtained (rather than written), the reasons need to be explained, confirmation of IRB approval that oral consent was adequate must be provided, and a statement of how it was documented included in the Consent section.
Consent for publication of identifiable data: For any posters, slides or documents that include information that could potentially identify an individual, please ensure that you have obtained written, informed consent from all patients or healthy participants (or their legal guardians for minors, or next of kin if the participant is deceased), confirming that the results and any images can be published. This includes large clinical datasets with direct or indirect identifiers (see this article for information), specific details about individuals, images and so on.
If your poster, slide or document contains any identifiable images of individuals, you must include a statement confirming that you have permission to publish these images. If your poster, slide or document contains any clinical images or identifiable data then you must include an explicit consent statement under a separate heading of the ‘Consent’ section (we suggest: “We confirm we have permission to use [images/data] from the participants/patients/individuals included in this presentation [conditions under which the permission was obtained]”).
Alternatively, if no consent for publication was required (e.g. the data has been anonymised), then this should be clearly stated and a note should be added confirming that such alterations have not distorted scientific meaning.
Signed consent forms should be made available to the F1000Research editorial office if requested.
Experiments involving vertebrates or regulated invertebrates must be carried out within the ethical guidelines provided by the authors’ institution and national or international regulations. Where applicable, a statement of ethics permission granted or animal licenses should be included. If animals were used but ethical approval was not required, a clear statement should be included stating why this approval was unnecessary.
In all cases, a statement should be made to confirm that all efforts were made to ameliorate any suffering of animals and details of how this was achieved should be provided.
Authors should comply with the Convention on Biological Diversity and the Convention on the Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
“A clinical trial is any research study that prospectively assigns human participants or groups of humans to one or more health-related interventions to evaluate the effects on health outcomes. Interventions include (but are not restricted to) drugs, cells and other biological products, surgical procedures, radiologic procedures, devices, behavioural treatments, process-of-care changes, preventive care, etc”.
Trials should be registered prospectively and the trial registration number and registration date must be included in the poster or slide. Further information can be found at the ICMJE faq on trial registration and the WHO provides a list of approved registries.
Although prospective trial registration is preferable, several initiatives (such as the AllTrials campaign) have recognized that retrospective trial registration will encourage publication of both positive and negative results.
For example, reports of clinical trials should adhere to the CONSORT reporting guidelines. Any deviation from the original trial protocol should be explained.
In order to maintain the integrity and completeness of the scholarly record, we will apply the following policies when published content needs to be corrected; these policies take into account current best practice in the scholarly publishing and library communities:
Posters, slides and documents may contain errors; authors and readers can point out such mistakes via the Comment system. In the rare instance that a poster, slide or document needs to be formally corrected, for example, if a change needs to be made to the author list, a Correction statement will be added.
For any retracted poster, slides or document, the reason for retraction and who is instigating the retraction will be clearly stated in the Retraction notice. A publication is usually only retracted at the authors’ request or by the publisher because serious misconduct has been brought to our attention.
The removal of a poster, slides or document would only be undertaken where legal limitations have been placed upon the publisher, copyright holder or author(s), for example, if the poster, slide or document is clearly defamatory or infringes others’ legal rights. The bibliographic information for a removed poster, slide or document will be retained on the site along with information regarding the circumstances that led to its removal.
Posters, slides and documents are not peer-reviewed or checked before being posted in F1000Research; publication of such shared content in F1000Research does not imply endorsement of its content, methods or ethical standards.
If a case of suspected research or publication misconduct is brought to our attention, we will follow COPE guidelines. This may involve contacting the authors’ research institution, an ethics committee or other third parties.
Research misconduct includes data fabrication or falsification, or cases where research involving animals or humans has not been carried out within an appropriate ethical framework. Publication misconduct includes duplicate publication of articles or plagiarism. Honest errors or differences of opinion are not considered ‘misconduct’.
If you suspect potential misconduct in an article published on F1000Research, please contact the editorial office ([email protected]).
Comments should focus on the scholarly content presented in the posters, slides and documents with which they are associated.
Comments that appear to be advertising, are potentially libelous or legally problematic (including comments revealing patient information) are not permitted. We will not accept Comments that are offensive, indecent or contain negative comments of a personal, racial, ethnic, sexual orientation, or religious character.
All Comments must be written in good English; a Comment may be rejected if it is deemed unintelligible.
Readers who wish to comment are asked to declare any competing interests. Competing interests can be of a financial nature (e.g. holding a patent or receiving fees from a company that may lose or gain financially from the publication of the Comment), or they can be personal, religious, political or other non-financial interests. When completing your declaration, please consider the issues summarized in the Declaration of Competing Interests.
While we welcome open scientific debate and discussion, we will not tolerate abusive behaviour 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 behaviour of individuals.
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.