Blog

If you’re new to Gates Open Research and open access publishing, you might be wondering how you can separate the facts from the fiction in order to decide what is right for you and your research. That is why we’re setting the record straight on open research, open peer review and open data by debunking some myths surrounding them.  

In this blog post, we hope to put you at ease when deciding to publish on Gates Open Research. 

Myth #1 ‘Open access Platforms such as Gates Open Research lack editorial standards’ 

At Gates Open Research, we believe researchers shouldn’t have to choose between speed and quality. After submission, our in-house Editorial team carries out a comprehensive set of prepublication checks which are designed to ensure that research published on the Platform meets our requirements around authorship, ethics, and data. 

Our in-house editorial team carefully review all submissions to ensure that each article: 

• Is (co-)authored by a Gates-funded researcher 
• Does not contain any instances of plagiarism 
• Complies with all ethical guidelines concerning the research 
• Makes clear any potential conflicts of interest 
• Complies with our open data guidelines and policies 
• Contains adequate method reporting and protocol information to make the data useful 

These rigorous checks ensure that researchers can confidently publish their work without compromising on quality.  

Myth #2 ‘Open peer review is less rigorous than closed peer review’ 

The Gates Open Research peer review model puts transparency center stage by using a formal, invited process that has a fixed focus on quality to ensure academic rigor. Reviewers are invited by our in-house team based on their expertise in the required field and must meet certain criteria to be eligible. 

We find open peer review reports are often more valuable for researchers when compared to closed peer review reports – perhaps because reviewers know anyone can see their feedback. Because of this, authors often receive a more considered, rigorous review, with constructive suggestions for improvements to increase the quality of their research. 

In addition to their written report, reviewers also select one of three statuses: 

• Approved: No or only minor changes are required. This means that the experimental design, including controls and methods, is adequate; results are presented accurately, and the conclusions are justified and supported by the data. 
• Approved with Reservations: The reviewer believes the paper has academic merit but has asked for a number of small changes to the article, or specific, sometimes more significant revisions. 
• Not Approved: The article is of very poor quality and there are fundamental flaws in the article that seriously undermine the findings and conclusions. 

We strongly encourage authors to address feedback from reviewers by commenting on the peer review reports and publishing new versions of their articles. Transparency in the peer review process is a hallmark for quality and accountability, making it easier to know if research can be trusted, whilst also enabling conversation within the research community and reducing the possibility of bias. 

Myth #3 ‘I can’t publish on Gates Open Research as I can’t make my data open and available’ 

We understand that research data can exist in many forms, including survey results, gene sequences, software, code, neuro-images, audio files etc. and that in some cases data sharing is not appropriate for legal, ethical, data protection, or confidentiality reasons. That is why Gates Open Research recommends researchers strive to make their data as open as possible, and as closed as necessary. This means researchers should only restrict access to their data where absolutely necessary, in situations where openly sharing the data is not possible. 

Still can’t share your data? Then, share your metadata! In cases where data cannot be shared for legal and/or ethical reasons, you can openly publish a description of your data (known as a ‘metadata record’). This helps others to discover your data and provides essential information about how the data can be accessed and cited. For example, you could post a “data codebook” or “data dictionary” in a repository that describes the variables used in your dataset. In this document, you can cite the article in which it appears in order to connect the data descriptor to the paper 

We hope debunking some of the common myths surrounding publishing on Gates Open Research brings you closer to realizing the benefits of open access publishing for researchers and society. To learn more about Gates Open Research, read our blog post with Ashley Farley, Program Officer of Knowledge and Research Services at the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, where she explores the publishing activity for the last year, whilst looking ahead at the future of Platform.