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.
You and your co-authors must list all relevant affiliations to attribute where the research or scholarly work was approved and/or supported and/or conducted.
Your affiliation in the manuscript should be the institution where you conducted the research. You should also include details of any funding received from that institution.
If you have changed affiliation since completing the research, your new affiliation can be acknowledged in a note. We can’t normally make changes to affiliation after the article is accepted.
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.
Generative Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools, such as large language models (LLMs) or multimodal models, continue to develop and evolve, including in their application for businesses and consumers.
F1000 welcomes the new opportunities offered by Generative AI tools, particularly in: enhancing idea generation and exploration, supporting authors to express content in a non-native language, and accelerating the research and dissemination process.
F1000 is offering guidance to authors, editors, and reviewers on the use of such tools, which may evolve given the swift development of the AI field.
Generative AI tools can produce diverse forms of content, spanning text generation, image synthesis, audio, and synthetic data. Some examples include ChatGPT, Copilot, Gemini, Claude, NovelAI, Jasper AI, DALL-E, Midjourney, Runway, etc.
While Generative AI has immense capabilities to enhance creativity for authors, there are certain risks associated with the current generation of Generative AI tools.
Some of the risks associated with the way Generative AI tools work today are:
Authors are accountable for the originality, validity, and integrity of the content of their submissions. In choosing to use Generative AI tools, authors are expected to do so responsibly and in accordance with our editorial policies on authorship.
This includes reviewing the outputs of any Generative AI tools and confirming content accuracy.
F1000 supports the responsible use of Generative AI tools that respect high standards of data security, confidentiality, and copyright protection in cases such as:
Authors are responsible for ensuring that the content of their submissions meets the required standards of rigorous scientific and scholarly assessment, research and validation, and is created by the author. Note that some journals may not allow use of Generative AI tools beyond language improvement, therefore authors are advised to consult with the editor of the journal prior to submission.
Generative AI tools must not be listed as an author, because such tools are unable to assume responsibility for the submitted content or manage copyright and licensing agreements. Authorship requires taking accountability for content, consenting to publication via a publishing agreement, and giving contractual assurances about the integrity of the work, among other principles. These are uniquely human responsibilities that cannot be undertaken by Generative AI tools.
Authors must clearly acknowledge within the article or book any use of Generative AI tools through a statement which includes: the full name of the tool used (with version number), how it was used, and the reason for use. For article submissions, this statement must be included in the Methods or Acknowledgments section. Book authors must disclose their intent to employ Generative AI tools at the earliest possible stage to their editorial contacts for approval – either at the proposal phase if known, or if necessary, during the manuscript writing phase. If approved, the book author must then include the statement in the preface or introduction of the book. This level of transparency ensures that editors can assess whether Generative AI tools have been used and whether they have been used responsibly. F1000 will retain its discretion over publication of the work, to ensure that integrity and guidelines have been upheld.
If an author is intending to use an AI tool, they should ensure that the tool is appropriate and robust for their proposed use, and that the terms applicable to such tool provide sufficient safeguards and protections, for example around intellectual property rights, confidentiality and security.
Authors should not submit manuscripts where Generative AI tools have been used in ways that replace core researcher and author responsibilities, for example:
F1000 currently does not permit the use of Generative AI in the creation and manipulation of images and figures, or original research data for use in our publications. The term “images and figures” includes pictures, charts, data tables, medical imagery, snippets of images, computer code, and formulas. The term “manipulation” includes augmenting, concealing, moving, removing, or introducing a specific feature within an image or figure. For additional information on F1000’s image policy for journals, please see Images and figures.
Utilising Generative AI and AI-assisted technologies in any part of the research process should always be undertaken with human oversight and transparency. Research ethics guidelines are still being updated regarding current Generative AI technologies. F1000 will continue to update our editorial guidelines as the technology and research ethics guidelines evolve.
F1000 strives for the highest standards of peer review integrity and transparency. Peer reviewers’ use of manuscripts in Generative AI systems may pose a risk to confidentiality, proprietary rights and data, including personally identifiable information. Therefore, peer reviewers should not upload files, images or information into Generative AI tools. Failure to comply with this policy may infringe upon the rightsholder’s intellectual property.
Generative AI may only be utilised to assist with improving review language, but peer reviewers will at all times remain responsible for ensuring the accuracy and integrity of their reviews.
Where you, as an author, wish to comment on aspects of the journal’s editorial management please contact us.
F1000-powered platforms follow the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) guidelines on appeals to peer reviewer decisions and complaints about a journal’s editorial management of the peer review process.
We welcome genuine appeals to peer reviewer decisions. However, you will need to provide strong evidence or new data/information in response to reviewers’ comments.
Peer reviewers don’t expect frequent appeals and they rarely reverse their original decisions.
The editorial office carries out a comprehensive set of prepublication checks to ensure that all policies and ethical guidelines are adhered to.
Therefore, if you receive a decision to reject your manuscript, you are encouraged to address the issues identified and resubmit your article. If issues cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the editorial office, we may reject your article and close our files.
For scholarly articles of an opinion nature an appeal is less likely to overturn the editorial office’s decision. These include opinion and review articles, where editorial judgment about readability and relevance weighs most heavily.
In any case, all opinion-led articles should be evidence-based and fully referenced. For opinion-led articles, you should always present your evidence and explain how it led you to form your opinion.
However, if you believe that there is a case to be made for a genuine appeal please follow the instructions below.
If you wish to appeal a journal editor’s decision, please contact us and explain clearly the basis for an appeal.
You should:
After receiving the appeal, the editorial office may involve the peer reviewers, the advisory board of the publication and/or Taylor & Francis, depending on the nature of the appeal. Reviewers may confirm their decision or seek additional peer- or statistical review of the original manuscript.
Where you, as an author, wish to comment on aspects of the journal’s editorial management please contact us.
It is important to note that F1000 cannot consider appeals where the subject matter is the focus of on-going legal proceedings. Similarly, we reserve the right to decline, suspend or to discontinue an appeal made under this policy in the event that legal proceedings commence and the claim concerns the same subject matter as the appeal.
It is the collective responsibility of all the individuals who have conducted the work to determine who should be listed as authors, and the order in which authors should be listed.
F1000-powered platforms will not decide on order of authorship and cannot arbitrate authorship disputes. Where unresolved disputes between the authors arise, the institution(s) where the work was performed will be asked to investigate.
Authorship gives credit and implies accountability for published work, so there are academic, social and financial implications.
It is very important to make sure people who have contributed to a paper, are given credit as authors. And also that people who are recognized as authors, understand their responsibility and accountability for what is being published.
There are a couple of types of authorship to be aware of.
If you are a named co-author, this means that you:
Every submission in a STM discipline should comply with the International Committee on Medical Journal Ethics’ definition of authorship.
Please include any other form of specific personal contribution in the acknowledgments section of your paper.
Important: agree on your corresponding author and the order of co-authors, and check all affiliations and contact details before submitting.
Co-authors must agree on who will take on the role of corresponding author. It is then the responsibility of the corresponding author to reach consensus with all co-authors regarding all aspects of the article, prior to submission. This includes the authorship list and order, and list of correct affiliations.
The corresponding author is also responsible for liaising with co-authors regarding any editorial queries. They also act on behalf of all co-authors in any communication about the article throughout: submission, production, publication and peer review.
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.
Where AI tools are used in content generation, they must be acknowledged and documented appropriately in the authored work.
Any changes in authorship prior to or after publication must be agreed upon by all authors – including those authors being added or removed. It is the responsibility of the corresponding author to obtain confirmation from all co-authors and to provide a completed Authorship Change Request form to the editorial office.
If a change in authorship is necessary after publication, this will be amended via a post-publication notice. Any changes in authorship must comply with our criteria for authorship. And requests for significant changes to the authorship list, after the article has been accepted, may be rejected if clear reasons and evidence of author contributions cannot be provided.
Contributions made by professional scientific, medical or technical writers, translators or anyone who has assisted with the manuscript content, must be acknowledged. Their source of funding must also be declared.
They should be included, with their permission, in an ‘Acknowledgments’ section with an explanation of their role, or they should be included in the author list if appropriate.
Authors are advised to consult the joint position statement from American Medical Writers Association (AMWA), European Medical Writers Association (EMWA), and International Society of Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP).
Any significant contribution to the research reported, should be appropriately credited according to our authorship criteria.
If any parts of the research were outsourced to professional laboratories or to data analysts, this should be clearly stated within the manuscript, alongside an explanation of their role. Or, they should be included in the author list if appropriate.
Any individuals who have contributed to the article (for example, technical assistance, formatting-related writing assistance, translators, scholarly discussions which significantly contributed to developing the article), but who do not meet the criteria for authorship, should be listed by name and affiliation in an ‘Acknowledgments’ section.
It is the responsibility of the authors to notify and obtain permission from those they wish to identify in this section. The process of obtaining permission should include sharing the article, so that those being identified can verify the context in which their contribution is being acknowledged.
Any assistance from AI tools for content generation (e.g. large language models) 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.
There are many reasons why an author may change their name in the course of their career. And they may wish to update their published articles to reflect this change, without publicly announcing this through a correction notice. F1000 will update articles where an author makes a request for their own name change, full or partial, without the requirement for an accompanying correction notice.
When an author requests a name change, F1000 will:
Resupply the new metadata and article content to any abstracting and indexing services that have agreements with the journal. Note: such services may have their own bibliographic policies regarding author name changes. F1000 cannot be held responsible for controlling updates to articles on third party sites and services once an article has been disseminated.
If an author wishes for a correction notice to be published alongside their name change, F1000 will accommodate this on request. But, it is not required for an author name change to be made.
To request a name change, please contact the editorial office.
F1000 considers it a breach of publication ethics to request a name change for an individual without their explicit consent.
Each author's contribution must be detailed by selecting CRediT roles on the article submission form.
Research and non-research articles must cite relevant, timely, and verified literature (peer-reviewed, where appropriate) to support any claims made in the article.
You must avoid excessive and inappropriate self-citation or prearrangements among author groups to inappropriately cite each other’s work, as this can be considered a form of misconduct called citation manipulation. Read the COPE guidance on citation manipulation.
If you’re the author of a non-research article (e.g. a Review or Opinion) you should make sure that the references you cite are relevant and provide a fair and balanced overview of the current state of research or scholarly work on the topic. Your references should not be unfairly biased towards a particular research group, organization or journal.
If you are unsure about whether to cite a source you should contact the editorial office for advice. For example, in some disciplines it might be expected to cite a published conference proceeding, a poster session or a conference presentation.
Any sources must be citable via a permanent identifier (e.g. a permanent Digital Object Identifier or an International Standard Serial Number).
We encourage unsolicited open scientific discussion on all research outputs. Such contributions are published through our Comment system. To ensure that comments contribute to, and focus on, the scholarly debate, we usually only allow comments from readers who have a formal affiliation with a research institution, or other relevant organization. Alternatively, we may also allow comments from readers who have demonstrable expertise in a relevant area of research. Consistent with our commitment to full transparency, the reader’s full name and affiliation appear on their public comment.
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.
You and all of your co-authors must declare any competing interests relevant to, or which can be perceived to be relevant to the article.
A competing interest can also be known as ‘conflict of interest’. A competing interest can occur when you, or your employer, or sponsor have a financial, commercial, legal, or professional relationship with other organizations, or with the people working with them, that could influence your research.
When you submit your paper, full disclosure is required. We will publish such disclosures to assist readers in evaluating the article.
You must declare the competing interest on the manuscript submission form in the online submission platform.
Competing interests can be financial or non-financial in nature. To maintain transparency, any associations which can be perceived by others as a competing interest must also be declared.
Important: if there are no competing interests to declare, authors should include a statement to the article to confirm that there are no relevant financial or non-financial competing interests to report.
Authors employed by pharmaceutical companies or other organizations which sponsor clinical trials must declare this as a competing interest.
Authors should adhere to the Good Publication Practice guidelines for pharmaceutical companies (GPP3), which provides guidance to ensure responsible and ethical standards are maintained.
F1000-powered platforms will not publish articles advertising commercial products.
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.
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 X (Twitter), you are permitted to share the post IDs or User IDs in a dataset. This allows others to ‘hydrate’ (get complete details of) these IDs using X’s API. Datasets containing post/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.
Where third party proprietary software has been used, an open source alternative should 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:
F1000 respects its authors’ decisions regarding the designations of territories in its published material.
F1000’s policy is to take a neutral stance in relation to territorial disputes or jurisdictional claims in its published content, including in maps and institutional affiliations.
Where a platform is affiliated or partnered with a society or other third party, F1000 will take into account that party’s policy on this issue to the extent it differs from F1000’s own.
When reporting research that could pose a significant threat to public health or national or international security through misapplication or malevolent use, the threat should be clearly declared in the manuscript.
Areas of potential concern include but are not limited to:
F1000-powered platforms require authors to declare all sources of financial support that helped to cover the expenses associated with the research reported in their article.
Examples of these funding sources include:
Examples of funding support authors are expected to declare include (but are not limited to):
Authors are expected to declare only the acquired funds and grants that are directly relevant to the work reported in their article. If no funding was obtained for the reported work, authors are also encouraged to declare that no funding was obtained. This ensures transparency and avoids concerns being raised about undeclared funding support.
Any funding declaration must include the full name(s) of the funding body, the grant number(s), and ideally, the name of the person/group to whom this grant was awarded. As stated above, if the funder also played an active role in the research study, such as the data acquisition or analysis, this should be clearly stated in the competing interests declaration.
Authors must be prepared to provide funding documentation and additional information to the journal office if requested (including, where relevant, information on funding used toward submission and publication fees). Please note that failure to disclose funding may, in some cases, be considered as misconduct and may result in corrective action to ensure the integrity of the scholarly record. Correction or retraction notices (as appropriate) may need to be issued on published articles where inaccuracies or key missing information in the funding statement are identified.
F1000 is a member of the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE). All F1000 platforms are expected to operate within COPE guidelines and work within all relevant legal and ethical frameworks. F1000 has a legal and ethical responsibility for all submitted works to ensure that papers are dealt with fairly.
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.
F1000 will not tolerate any kind of harassment of our authors, reviewers, staff, or vendors.
We expect to work in an environment of mutual respect and will work with the Taylor & Francis ethics team and legal team to deal with any cases of harassment.
Advice for researchers experiencing harassment: As a researcher, you should expect your work to be scrutinized by the public, policy makers, and campaigners. However, some researchers working on high-profile subjects that attract controversy have also found themselves targeted with online harassment.
To help researchers dealing with these issues, Taylor & Francis has supported the Science Media Centre in producing an updated guide, including tips on how to deal with social media harassment.
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.
F1000Research articles are usually published under a CC BY license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, and leaves the copyright of the article with the current copyright holder (usually the author or his/her institution). Additional waivers are used for some governmental employees, as appropriate.
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.
F1000 takes all forms of misconduct seriously and will take all necessary action, in accordance with COPE guidelines, to protect the integrity of the scholarly record. Read on for a few examples of misconduct.
Plagiarism applies to data, images, words or ideas taken from any materials in electronic or print formats without sufficient attribution. This can include abstracts, seminar presentations, laboratory reports, thesis or dissertation, research proposals, computer programs, online posts, grey literature and unpublished or published manuscripts.
The use of any such material either directly or indirectly should be properly acknowledged in all instances and the source of content must always be cited.
F1000 uses plagiarism detection software and will deal with cases of plagiarism according to COPE guidelines.
Read our plagiarism policies and guidance for authors to find out what plagiarism is (and isn’t) and how you can avoid it.
Although authors are expected to refer to their own previously published work, in some cases re-using large proportions is considered to be unacceptable. Where this is unavoidable authors must be transparent about their previously published work by providing appropriate citations.
Authors must also ensure that re-use is compliant with copyright policies. F1000 will deal with cases of text-recycling according to COPE guidelines.
Authors are required to give an honest account of authorship, where each listed author meets the authorship criteria in order to provide transparency and credit to those who have substantially contributed to the work.
However, where authors deliberately don’t comply this is considered to be a form of misconduct.
Of particular concern are:
Please read our authorship policy.
Affiliations must be an accurate reflection of where the study was approved and/or supported and/or conducted. For non-research articles, the affiliation should be listed as the place the author(s) was based at time of submission.
Misrepresentation of affiliation is a form of misconduct, and F1000 will deal will such cases by contacting all relevant institutions to assist with our investigation.
Where authors or reviewers do not declare relevant competing interests, which can be perceived to influence their opinion of or assessment of a research or other type of scholarly article.
Editors and reviewers should recuse themselves from any kind of involvement with submissions they have a significant competing interest against, the nature of which is likely to influence their ability to provide a fair and balanced assessment.
Find out more about competing interests.
Where deliberate action has been taken to inappropriately manipulate or fabricate images or data. This is a serious form of misconduct as it is designed to mislead others and damages the integrity of the scholarly record with wide-reaching impact and long-term consequences.
Please read our policies on images and figures.
Authors are required to declare upon submission that the manuscript is not under consideration elsewhere, and as such the detection of a duplicate submission or publication is typically considered to be a deliberate act.
Authors who wish to submit secondary publications (e.g., an article translated into English), must seek permission from the publisher and copyright holder of the original article, and must inform F1000 about the history of the original article. This is in accordance with ICMJE guidance.
Authors of secondary publications which have been translated into English must make it clear to readers that the article is a translated version and must include a citation to the original article.
Where authors or agencies submitting on behalf of authors take deliberate steps to influence the peer review process in their favor, or where editors make decisions based on biased peer review reports.
Where there is evidence to suggest that the integrity of the peer review process has been compromised, necessary action will be taken to correct the scholarly record.
Citation manipulation or gaming is where authors excessively or inappropriately self-cite or enter into prearrangements among researcher or reviewer groups to inappropriately cite each other’s work.
Citation manipulation may include the following behaviors:
Where citation manipulation is suspected or detected, it will be subject to an investigation. Where this behaviour is identified, unpublished articles may be rejected, or if published, may be subject to a post-publication notice, such as retraction.
Where there is evidence of repeated behaviour, or a deliberate attempt to engage in citation manipulation, F1000 may notify the individual’s institution.
Where research outside the approved ethics protocols has been conducted.
For example, where necessary permissions have not been obtained, or where researchers have not taken sufficient steps to protect the safety and privacy of human subjects, or the inadequate welfare of animals used in the research, or where specimens (e.g., fossils, archaeological specimens, human tissues, etc.) have not been ethically sourced.
Please read our research ethics policies.
F1000 has a zero tolerance policy regarding the manipulation of the submission, peer review or publication process, including but not limited to:
Upon being made aware of a concern, we will conduct a full investigation in accordance with this policy.
As per the COPE guidance, attempts to manipulate the process will be considered an indicator of research misconduct and a breach of publishing ethics standards. Where this activity results in the Editor and/or Publisher no longer being able to rely upon the validity and integrity of the article, we will take action to reject (pre-publication) or retract (post-publication) the article. Where we take this action, we reserve the right to inform an author’s institution, employer or funder.
Even if authors do not respond to the investigation or requests for information, we will take corrective action to protect the scholarly record as necessary.
Research conducted abroad carries particular ethical implications. Particularly when researchers based in high-income countries, regions, areas, or institutions, undertake research projects in location/s with limited research ethics oversight or weaker socio-economic standing. This can lead to an inequity between the researchers and the local community. To this end, researchers are encouraged to:
Researchers are also encouraged to include a statement explaining how they considered their impact on the environment/local population. And, why it was essential that they had to perform the study in that location/community.
Researchers should also be mindful of ethics dumping. This is where researchers leading a study deliberately locate their study or establish research collaborations with the intention of circumventing international standards of research ethics and responsible research practices. In doing so, the safety and welfare of the public, of human research participants and/or experimental animals is not appropriately prioritized, and valid informed consent from research participants is lacking.
Researchers should be aware that the editorial team may ask questions about these considerations at any point in the submission or publication process. F1000 reserve the right to reject (pre-publication) or retract (post-publication) any submission where ethical concerns cannot be adequately addressed.
Where authors have included material, which is under copyright and have not obtained the appropriate permissions as instructed by the copyright holders.
Read our guide to using third-party material in your article for more information on requesting permission to reproduce work(s) under copyright.
Peer review of articles on F1000Research takes place after publication; once the article is published, expert reviewers are formally invited to review under our open and transparent peer review model. To improve the consistency of definitions and terminology in peer review, F1000Research uses the NISO standard terminology for peer review to summarise our peer review process as:
More information is available on the 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.
Peer review may be discontinued on some articles that have not received sufficient peer review reports after a long period of time. As a general rule, authors may choose to stop peer review if their article has not received any reports after 6 months, or if only 1 report has been received after 9 months. In some cases, where authors have not actively pursued peer review, the F1000Research team may add an explanation on the article to alert readers that the peer review of the article is not active.
Articles with 0 or 1 reports 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).
All articles published in F1000Research receive a DOI and are permanently published. This applies regardless of the outcome of the peer review that follows after publication.
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:
In traditional journals, where articles are peer reviewed before publication, Corrections (or Errata) are published to alert readers to errors in the article that became apparent following the publication of the final article.
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.
A retraction will be issued where a major error (e.g., in the methods or analysis) invalidates the conclusions in the article, or where it appears research or publication misconduct has taken place (e.g., research without required ethical approvals, fabricated data, manipulated images, plagiarism, duplicate publication, etc.).
The decision to retract an article will be made in accordance with F1000 and Taylor & Francis policies and COPE guidelines. The decision will follow a full investigation by our editorial staff. Authors and institutions may request a retraction of their articles if they believe their reasons meet the criteria for retraction.
Retractions are issued to correct the scholarly record and should not be interpreted as punishments for the authors.
The COPE guidance can be found here.
Retraction will be considered in cases where:
Where the decision has been taken to retract an article, F1000 will:
If there is a potential, not yet resolved, problem with an article, it may be appropriate to alert readers with an Editorial Note. Such an Editorial Note may be added, for example, if F1000Research receives information that research or publication misconduct might have taken place, or that there is a serious dispute between authors or between the authors and third parties. The Editorial Note will usually be posted while further investigations take place and until a more permanent solution has been found (e.g. the publication of a revised ‘corrected’ version, or a Retraction).
In rare cases, F1000Research may decide to publish an Expression of Concern, which is linked to the problematic article, if there are serious concerns about an article but no conclusive evidence can be obtained that would unequivocally justify a Retraction. This may include:
Trust and integrity are among what readers value the most in scholarly peer-reviewed journal content. That’s why F1000 takes the issue of plagiarism very seriously.
“When somebody presents the work of others (data, words or theories) as if they were his/her own and without proper acknowledgment.”
Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE)
For F1000, this applies to data, images, words or ideas taken from any materials in electronic or print formats without sufficient attribution. This can include:
The use of any such material either directly or indirectly should be properly acknowledged in all instances. You should always cite your source (please see the section ‘How to avoid plagiarism’ below).
“Appropriating someone else’s idea (e.g., an explanation, a theory, a conclusion, a hypothesis, a metaphor) in whole or in part, or with superficial modifications without giving credit to its originator.”
Office of Research Integrity (ORI)
The ORI provides some good examples of the plagiarism of ideas, including the phenomenon of unconscious plagiarism (i.e., cryptomnesia).
Trust and integrity are among what readers value the most in scholarly peer-reviewed journal content. When plagiarism has been detected in a journal article it places doubt in that trust, because if an author is prepared to mislead readers about how they came across their material, how can you really be certain of the scientific rigor in the rest of their work?
Readers should be able to distinguish what is and isn’t original in a journal article. Authors should be properly credited for their work if that work is being re-used in another’s article. This is in accordance with international copyright laws and ethical conduct guidelines.
As indicated below, duplicate publication of original research is particularly prevalent and damaging (especially in the medical and health subject areas) since it can contribute to the distortion of the available evidence in academic literature.
In addition to the direct copying of text, with or without paraphrasing, from a single source without proper acknowledgement, the common types of plagiarism are:
Mosaic plagiarism (patchwork plagiarism)This is when text is lifted from a few different sources (which may include your own previous work) and put into your manuscript to create the impression of new text. This includes rewording pieces of sourced material while keeping the structure/syntax of the original texts.
Self-plagiarism/ text-recyclingThis is the redundant reuse of your own work (e.g., text, data, and images), including text translated from another language, usually without proper citation. It creates repetition in the academic literature and can skew meta-analyses if you publish the same sets of data multiple times as “new” data. Two forms of self-plagiarism include:
Other types of plagiarism also exist. What they all have in common is that there is a lack of transparency to the original source of the material which has been used in the manuscript.
We recognize there can be legitimate reasons for overlap in some cases. For example, the following would not be considered plagiarism/ duplicate publication:
ICMJE recommendations
“Secondary publication of material published in other journals or online may be justifiable and beneficial, especially when intended to disseminate important information to the widest possible audience (e.g., guidelines produced by government agencies and professional organizations in the same or a different language).”
The recommendations go on to state that secondary publication for various other reasons may also be justifiable provided the conditions listed 1 to 6 in Section III.D.3. are met.
The essential message here is about ensuring you are being transparent and inform the journal about any potential overlap with other sources on submission of your manuscript. This allows the journal to consider if the secondary publication is acceptable or not. Where it is acceptable, the journal will indicate it as a secondary publication (complete or abridged republication or translation) of a primary publication and for all simultaneously published joint publications include a statement making the simultaneous publication clear to readers.
F1000 uses Crossref Similarity Check to screen for unoriginal material. Authors submitting to F1000-powered platforms should be aware that their paper may be submitted to Crossref Similarity Check at any point during the peer-review or production process.
Where overlap is found, the results of the Similarity Check will be examined by the editorial team to establish whether it constitutes plagiarism or if there are legitimate reasons for the overlap.
Any allegations of plagiarism or self-plagiarism/text-recycling made to F1000 will be investigated by the editorial team, following COPE guidelines. If the allegations appear to be founded, we will then contact all named authors of the paper and request an explanation of the overlapping material. We may ask Editorial Board members and the author’s institution to assist in further evaluation of the paper and allegations.
The plagiarism of ideas can be the most difficult for publishers to be able to detect and validate. Investigations into this type of plagiarism will usually require the involvement of other parties, such as independent expert reviewers and/or institutions where the work was carried out.
Based on the investigation and reply from the author(s), the journal will decide how to proceed, using COPE flowcharts where applicable. This may result in the following actions being taken, depending on the nature and severity of the case:
*Please note that a correction can be published for minor similarities only where there is no misattribution or deliberate lack of attribution of work (e.g., to add in a missing full citation/ reference to the source material). A correction notice cannot be used to effectively ‘fix’ or rewrite the plagiarized sections.
A preprint, also known as the author’s original manuscript (AOM), is the version of your article before you have submitted it to a journal for peer review.
Preprint servers are online repositories which enable you to post this early version of your paper online.
In some academic disciplines preprint servers are now commonly used. Among the most well known are:
There are, however, equivalents for most research areas.
Preprint servers are an opportunity to get your work out to your peers quickly. Although readers need to keep in mind that preprints will not have been through a formal peer review process.
Your manuscript can become available for others to read before the final version of it is published. As publication times can sometimes be lengthy, this gives other researchers a chance to see your work a lot quicker.
AuthorshipThe preprint is a public record that you published that research at that time. Your work will likely be assigned a digital object identifier (DOI).
ReviewPosting your preprint allows other researchers to offer feedback that may help to improve your article before the more formal journal peer review process.
Research impactThe research presented in your preprint will be publicly available for other researchers or practitioners to cite and build upon more quickly.
If you upload an early version of your article to a non-commercial preprint server, you can subsequently submit to an F1000-powered platform. We do not consider posting on a preprint server to be duplicate publication and this will not jeopardize consideration for publication.
If you’ve posted your AOM to a preprint server, please cite your preprint in the manuscript you submit to the journal, to ensure there will be a link to the AOM from the final Version of Record (VOR).
Then, once your article is accepted, we ask that you update the preprint to acknowledge that the article has been accepted for publication as follows:
“This article has been accepted for publication in [PLATFORM TITLE], published by F1000, Taylor & Francis.”
After publication you can add the following text to your preprint to encourage others to read and cite the final published version of your article:
“This is an original manuscript of an article published by F1000, Taylor & Francis in [PLATFORM TITLE] on [date of publication], available online: https://doi.org/[Article DOI].”
F1000Research adheres to the COPE guidelines relating to ethical oversight.
All human and animal subjects, living and deceased, should be treated with dignity and respect in academic research. Ethical research practices require that researchers are vigilant in ensuring that their work minimizes risk and avoids harm. Researchers also have an ethical obligation to be transparent about their research methods in such a way that editors, peer reviewers, and readers may fairly and adequately evaluate their work.
All studies involving humans (individuals, human data or material) must have been conducted according to the principles expressed in the Declaration of Helsinki. Prior to starting the study, ethical approval must have been obtained for all protocols from the authors’ institutional or other relevant ethics committee (Institutional Review Board, IRB) to ensure that they meet national and international guidelines for research on humans. Details of this approval must be included within the manuscript, including the name of the ethics committee, reference/permit number(s) and the date approval was granted.
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. Non-stigmatizing and non-discriminatory 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. Authors must be prepared to provide further information to the editorial office upon request.
Patient/participant privacy and informed consent for publicationAs stated in the Recommendations of the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors: “Patients and study participants have a right to privacy that should not be infringed without informed consent. Identifying information should not be published in written descriptions, photographs, and pedigrees unless the information is essential for scientific purposes and the patient (or parent or guardian) gives written informed consent for publication. Informed consent for this purpose requires that the patient be shown the manuscript to be published. When informed consent has been obtained it should be indicated in the published article.” Informed consent must be voluntarily obtained from the patient/participant who should be fully informed of the study including any of the benefits and risks involved.
Consent to participateFor 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 prior to the commencement of the study, and this should be stated in the article in a section entitled ‘Consent’. If only verbal informed consent was obtained (rather than written), the reasons need to be explained, confirmation of IRB approval that verbal consent was adequate must be provided, and a statement of how it was documented included in the Consent section of the manuscript.
For patients or study participants who are not adults or are considered to be vulnerable or unable to provide informed consent, this must then be obtained from their legal guardians, or next of kin if the participant is deceased.
Consent for publication of identifiable dataFor any articles that include information that could potentially identify an individual (including by their online alias, social media handles etc.), please ensure that you have obtained written informed consent from all patients or participants (or their parents/legal guardians for minors or unable to give informed consent, or next of kin if the participant is deceased), confirming that the results and any accompanying images can be published and include a statement confirming consent to publish has been obtained. This identifying information includes (but is not limited to) written descriptions, photographs, illustrations, recordings, videos, pedigrees, rare diseases, physical traits or disorders (see this article for information).
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 who granted consent to publish and the conditions under which the permission was obtained. The process of obtaining consent to publish should include sharing the article with the individual (or whoever is consenting on their behalf), so that they are fully aware of the content of the article before it is published.
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 the scientific meaning.
Consent to publish cannot be exempted by an ethics committee. Signed consent forms must be made available to the editorial office if requested.
Participants must provide informed written consent to be part of the study, especially where the research involves an intervention (e.g. a clinical trial). A statement to confirm this must be included within the manuscript.
Authors must be prepared to provide dated copies signed by the participants and author(s) to the editorial office, if requested. In studies where verbal informed consent has been obtained rather than written informed consent, this must be explained and stated within the manuscript.
Clinical trialsF1000Research uses the WHO definition of a clinical trial, which is described as:
“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”.
In addition to the required informed written consent (as stated above), clinical trial protocols must also be registered in a publicly accessible registry prior to participant recruitment. The public registry must be open to all prospective registrants and managed by a registry conforming to WHO standards. A list of eligible registries can be found at the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). Trials can also be registered at ClinicalTrials.gov and other primary registries in the WHO primary registries network.
The trial registration number, date of registration and a weblink to the registration in the trial registry must be included in the Abstract and Methods sections of the manuscript. Any deviation from the original trial protocol must be explained, especially changes concerning primary outcomes.
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, date of registration and a weblink to the registration in the trial registry must be included in the Abstract and Methods section of the article.
Details on prospective and retrospective registration are available from the AllTrials campaign and the ICMJE.
Case reportsAuthors of any research articles reporting the use of donated organs must include a statement to confirm informed written consent was obtained. Authors must be particularly attentive to the risks associated with working with vulnerable populations and should be prepared to provide details of the process by which informed consent was obtained.
These requirements apply for all studies (including follow-up studies) involving donors or patients who have received organ or tissue transplantation. F1000Research reserves the right to reject submissions (pre-publication) or retract published articles involving transplantation, where the authors are unable to provide confirmed evidence of informed consent. Authors must be prepared to provide further supporting information related to their study (e.g. ethical approval and informed consent forms) to the editorial office upon request.
Human embryos and human stem cellsAuthors of research reporting the use of human embryos, human embryonic stem cells (including clinical applications of stem cells) and related materials, must include a statement within the manuscript to confirm that all experiments were performed in accordance with all safety considerations, ethical guidelines and applicable regulations.
Authors must be able to verify that all recipients and/or donors of stem cells or tissues (or their next of kin if the donor is deceased) provided full informed written consent.
F1000Research endorses the principles on ethical stem cell research outlined in the ISSCR Guidelines for Stem Cell Research and Clinical Translation.
Specifically, authors must include a statement within the manuscript to provide details of the name of the ethics committee(s) which approved the study. They must also include the reference/permit numbers where available, and a statement to confirm informed written consent was obtained.
Consent for research involving children, adolescents, and vulnerable or incapacitated study participantsWritten informed consent must be obtained from the parent or guardian of any participants who are not able to provide full informed consent themselves. Age of legal adulthood is determined by the country in which study participants are based, which is typically between ages 16-18. Ideally, researchers should also seek assent from children, where possible.
In accordance with the principles outlined in the Nuremberg Code and the Belmont Report, informed consent must have been given with free will, under no coercion or bribery of any kind.
Retrospective studiesResearchers must confirm they have obtained ethical approval to conduct the study, as well as permission from the dataset owner to use the information in databases/repositories for the purposes of the research they are conducting.
Where permission to use information from a database/repository is not required (e.g. where it is publicly available and unrestricted re-use is permitted via an open license), a statement to explain this must be included within the manuscript.
Data acquired must be kept anonymized unless otherwise advised by the owners of the content in the database. Where participants’ details are not required to be anonymized, authors must be able to provide evidence that written informed consent, including consent to publish, was obtained from participants.
Survey studiesResearchers must ensure they have informed all participants why the research is being conducted, whether or not anonymity is assured, and how the data they are collecting is being stored. The participant’s right to confidentiality should always be considered and they should be fully informed about the aims of the research and if there are any risks associated. Their voluntary consent to participate should be recorded and any legal requirements on data protection should be adhered to.
Where required by national law or the researcher’s institution, ethical approval must be obtained prior to conducting the study. In settings where ethics approval for survey studies is not required, authors should include a statement to explain this within the manuscript.
Covert observational researchCovert observational research requires particular ethical and legal considerations but may be acceptable in rare cases with a strong justification. Researchers must also consider the emerging legal frameworks surrounding rights to privacy, which vary considerably across the globe. Authors conducting covert research should consult relevant guidelines, such as those outlined in the British Sociological Association’s Statement of Ethical Practice.
All studies that include covert research must include the following:
Please note that the editorial office reserves the right to deem covert research unsuitable for publication.
Research on indigenous communitiesAuthors should be aware of any specific research ethics approval and informed consent procedures which need to be followed in order to conduct research in communities where special processes for permissions may exist. Authors should also be aware of cultural sensitivities or any restrictions associated with the publication of content, including images included in their manuscripts. In many indigenous communities, additional permissions may need to be sought from community leaders and/or elders.
Authors working with indigenous communities are advised to consult appropriate guidelines for ethical research and publishing (including requirements for authorship) such as:
Authors conducting research using media tools are advised to consult appropriate guidelines such as:
Communication researchScholars in the field of communication should be aware of any restrictions for using copyrighted content for their work.
Authors are advised to consult appropriate guidance such as the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Scholarly Research in Communication published by The International Communication Association.
Social media researchScholars using data gathered from social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, etc.) should be aware of national laws and ethical guidance on the gathering of and publication of such information.
When researchers are interacting with individuals or obtaining private information, they should obtain ethical approval prior to conducting the study. Researchers should also ensure appropriate anonymization and obtain informed consent from anyone who could potentially be identified.
Please note that not all data can be collected as fair use or a copyright exception. Authors must check the social media platform’s user policy or terms of service in the region where the research was conducted to determine whether permission is required from the platform.
Authors are advised to consult appropriate guidance such as the ethics statement and framework from Social Data Science Lab and the ethical guidelines for digital research from the British Sociological Association.
Research involving animalsStudies involving vertebrates or regulated invertebrates (e.g. cephalopods), experimental, fieldwork or non-experimental research on animals, must be carried out after obtaining approval from the relevant institutional ethics committee and/or the institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC). Research procedures must be carried out in accordance with applicable national or international regulations. In field studies, authors must have also obtained any necessary permits for access to lands. For experimental studies involving client-owned animals, authors must also document informed consent from the client or owner and adherence to best practices of veterinary care.
A statement detailing the ethics approval, including the name of the ethics committee, reference/permit number(s) and the date approval, IACUC approval, animal licenses and other permits obtained should be included in the manuscript.
Where a study has been granted an exemption from requiring ethical approval, this should be stated along with the name of the ethics committee which provided the exemption, and the reasons for exemption. If animals were used but ethical or IACUC approval was not required, a clear statement should be included stating why this approval was unnecessary.
Authors conducting research on animals are advised to consult appropriate guidelines on care and handling of laboratory animals such as the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: Eighth Edition (Washington, DC: The National Academies Press).
Specifically, submissions of research involving laboratory-based animals (vertebrates or regulated invertebrates) must include details on housing, husbandry and steps taken to reduce suffering. In submissions describing the sacrifice of experimental animals, details must be provided on humane endpoints. In particular, details about the planned behavioral observations or physiological measurements used to determine the humane endpoint must be described. Researchers conducting this type of research are advised to consult the NC3Rs guide on Humane Endpoints and the American Veterinary Medical Association Guidelines for the Humane Slaughter of Animals.
Any euthanasia or anesthesia methods must be described in detail, including information about the agents used. These procedures must be carried out in accordance with applicable veterinary guidelines, such as the American Veterinary Medical Association. 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.
F1000Research also endorses the principles on ethical animal research outlined in the Basel Declaration and the ethical guidelines by the International Council for Laboratory Animal Science (ICLAS).
Authors describing studies involving animals must have consulted the ‘Animal Research: Reporting In Vivo Experiments’ (ARRIVE) 2.0 guidelines, developed by the NC3Rs to improve standards of reporting, ensuring that the data from animal experiments can be fully scrutinized and utilized. Articles reporting in vivo experiments must adhere to the ARRIVE Essential 10 checklist as a minimum, and we encourage authors to use the full ARRIVE 2.0 checklist. The relevant information outlined in these guidelines should be included in the appropriate sections of the article and the checklist/s should be provided as extended data (see our Data Guidelines for more information).
Research involving plantsStudies on plants (cultivated or wild), including the collection of plant material, must be carried out within the guidelines provided by the authors’ institution(s) and national or international regulations. Field studies should comply with local legislation and, where applicable, a statement of permissions granted and/or licenses obtained should be included.
Voucher specimens must be deposited in a public herbarium or other public collection providing access to deposited material. Information on the voucher specimen and who identified it must be included in the manuscript.
Research involving threatened/endangered speciesAuthors should comply with:
Studies involving geological samples, including their collection, must be carried out responsibly and within the guidelines provided by the authors’ institution(s) and national or international regulations. Field studies should comply with local legislation and, where applicable, a statement of permissions granted and/or licenses obtained should be included.
Collection of samples and data should normally be in compliance with the Geologists’ Association’s Geological Fieldwork Code. Further information and guidance is provided by the Geological Society.
Research involving protected heritage sitesResearchers working on protected heritage sites must comply with all necessary ethical guidelines (including process of data collection, deposition and handling specimens) and obtain all necessary permits from relevant authorities for access to sites and/or specimens prior to conducting the work.
Authors must include a statement within the manuscript to confirm that all necessary permits were obtained, and must include the name of the authority which provided it.
Research in palaeontology and archaeologyAuthors must ensure they have provided detailed information about the methods used for the research work and the analysis (including phylogenies). Detailed information must also be provided about the specimens (including numbers and repository information), museum name (if applicable) and geographic location.
If according to national or international regulations any permits are required for the research and/or the publication of the work, this must be obtained from the relevant authority. As required by local authorities, any discoveries from their sites must be reported to the relevant authorities prior to submission of the manuscript.
Authors reporting archaeological work involving human remains must comply with all necessary ethical guidelines (including observing best practice in data collection, recording and deposition) and obtain all necessary permits from relevant authorities for access to sites and handling of the human remains prior to conducting the work. Authors are advised to consult the Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains (Chartered Institute for Archaeologists).
Authors must include a statement within the manuscript to confirm that all necessary permits were obtained, and must include the name of the authority which provided it.
Biosafety, biosecurity, and emerging biotechnologyF1000Research will only consider research which has been carried out in compliance with institutional biosafety and biosecurity policies, which in turn should be informed by national or international recommendations.
Researchers should be aware of Dual Use Research of Concern (DURC) related to their work, which according to the NIH Office of Science Policy “can be reasonably anticipated to provide knowledge, information, products or technologies that could be directly misapplied to pose a significant threat with broad potential consequences to public health and safety, agricultural crops and other plants, animals, the environment, material, or national security”.
Researchers of relevant work are advised to be aware of the WHO recommendations of responsible life sciences research, and should take steps to mitigate any risks contributed by their research.
Where concerns are raised about potential risk, we may seek expert advice to assess this, so authors should be prepared to provide any further information requested by the journal editorial office.
Methodological approaches vary significantly across the arts, humanities, and social sciences. Yet, these diverse research communities share basic ethical principles and responsibilities. Researchers also have an ethical obligation to be transparent about their research methods in such a way that editors, peer reviewers, and readers may fairly and adequately evaluate their work.
All research should be undertaken ethically and responsibly, in line with the latest guidelines from researchers’ disciplines, institutions, funders, and scholarly societies, in consultation with relevant authorities, site owners, and in accordance with national and international law.
Informed written consent is essential to ethical research. Researchers should always obtain informed consent from individual participants, and consent should be voluntary, specific, and offered without coercion, bribery, or misinformation of any kind.
Researchers have an ethical obligation to ensure that participants have a clear and complete understanding of how the findings of a study will be used and distributed.
For submissions that include information that could be used to potentially identify an individual (e.g., by their personal data, online alias or social media handles), authors must confirm that they have obtained written informed consent to publish the details and any accompanying images from all participants (or their parents/guardians if the participant is not an adult or unable to give informed consent).
Identifying information includes (but is not limited to) written descriptions, photographs, illustrations, recordings, videos, online aliases, social media handles, pedigrees and rare diseases, physical traits or disorders. The process of obtaining consent to publish should include sharing the article with the participant (or guardian), so that they are fully aware of the content of the article before it is published.
Researchers must ensure that participants fully understand the benefits and risks of being included in photographs and how the photographs will be used, stored, and circulated.
Consent to Publish statements must confirm that the identifiable details and any images, videos, or recordings can be published, and that the person(s) providing consent have been shown the article contents to be published. Authors must provide an explicit consent statement. We suggest ‘Written informed consent for publication of the participants’ details and/or their images was obtained from the participants/parents/guardian/relative of the participant.’ Authors may use this Consent to Publish Form, which should be completed, signed, and saved securely.
All human beings, living and deceased, should be treated with dignity and respect in academic research. Ethical research practices require that researchers are vigilant in ensuring that their work minimizes risk and avoids harm to participants. Special consideration should be given to protecting the dignity and wellbeing of vulnerable participants, including but not limited to children, refugees, asylum seekers, migrants, institutionalized persons, or anyone who may lack capacity to provide informed consent.
Authors should be familiar with disciplinary, institutional, and national/international guidelines regarding research on vulnerable populations. Disadvantaged, vulnerable, and marginalised groups are defined by the WHO as ‘people who, due to factors usually considered outside their control, do not have the same opportunities as other, more fortunate groups in society’. The European Commission, the Global Association of Human Trafficking Scholars and the Economic and Social Research Council have produced guidance for research involving these groups.
Written informed consent must be obtained from the parent/guardian of participants who are not legally adults, except in rare cases where children can provide consent on their own (e.g., emancipated minors). Age of legal adulthood is determined by the country where study participants are based, which is typically between ages 16-18. Ideally, researchers should also seek assent from children, where possible.
Authors working with indigenous communities are advised to consult appropriate guidelines for ethical research and publishing (including requirements for authorship) and consult informed consent procedures and permissions necessary to conduct research on indigenous peoples and communities.
Authors should also be attentive to cultural sensitivities and restrictions associated with the publication of content, including images, in their manuscripts, which may cause offence; for example, historical events, religious texts. In many indigenous communities, additional permissions may be required from community leaders and/or elders.
Examples of such guidelines include the AIATSIS Guidelines for ethical publishing, the American Anthropological Association guidelines, the National Inuit Strategy on Research and Interviewing Elders: Guidelines from the National Aboriginal Health Organization. Authors conducting research using media tools are advised to consult appropriate guidelines such as the On Screen Protocols & Pathways: A Media Production Guide to Working With First Nations, Metis, and Inuit Communities, Cultures, Concepts & Stories.
Ethnographic research should be conducted in accordance with national laws, codes, and guidelines, as well as principles and best practices in the field, such as those outlined by the American Anthropological Association. Researchers conducting ethnographies and interviews should also obtain approval from their ethics or institutional committee prior to conducting the research. Participants should be fully informed about the purposes of the research, how ethnographies/interviews will be used, stored, and published, and expectations around privacy and confidentiality.
A statement should be included within the manuscript confirming that the study received ethical approval, that interviewees have been anonymized, if appropriate for the study design, and that all participants provided informed consent.
“Helicopter” or “parachute” research and ethics dumpingResearch conducted abroad carries particular ethical implications, particularly when researchers based in high-income countries, regions, areas, or institutions, undertake research projects in a location/s with limited research ethics oversight or weaker socio-economic standing. This can lead to an inequity between the researchers and the local community. To this end, researchers are encouraged to:
Researchers are also encouraged to include a statement explaining how they considered their impact on the environment/local population, and why it was essential that they had to perform the study in that location/community.
Researchers should also be mindful of ethics dumping. This is where researchers leading a study deliberately locate their study or establish research collaborations with the intention of circumventing international standards of research ethics and responsible research practices. In doing so, the safety and welfare of the public, of human research participants and/or experimental animals is not appropriately prioritized, and valid informed consent from research participants is lacking.
Researchers should be aware that the journal editorial team may ask questions about these considerations at any point in the submission or publication process. Taylor & Francis reserve the right to reject (pre-publication) or retract (post-publication) any submission where ethical concerns cannot be adequately addressed.
Further recommendations that can be considered are available at A Global Ethics Code.
Covert observational research requires particular ethical and legal considerations but may be acceptable in rare cases with a strong justification. Researchers must also consider the emerging legal frameworks surrounding rights to privacy, which vary considerably across the globe. Authors conducting covert research should consult relevant guidelines, such as those outlined in the British Sociological Association’s Statement of Ethical Practice.
All studies that include covert research must include the following:
Please note that the editorial office reserves the right to deem covert research unsuitable for publication.
Oral histories should be conducted in accordance with best practices in the field, such as the principles outlined by the Oral History Society and the Oral History Association. Researchers conducting oral histories are expected to have obtained full informed consent from interviewees prior to beginning an interview. Authors should verify if ethical approval is required for oral histories, according to the appropriate institutional, national and international guidelines. Authors may be asked to provide evidence of this by the editorial office. If the oral history is excluded from requiring ethical approval, authors should provide details of the reason for exclusion in the manuscript.
Participants in surveys should be fully informed about the purpose of the study, whether anonymity is assured, how the survey data will be stored, and informed of any other associated risks. Researchers should also be aware of and adhere to any legal or institutional requirements regarding data protection. Where required by national law or the researcher’s institution, ethical approval must be obtained prior to conducting the study.
Scholars in the field of communication should be aware of restrictions for using copyrighted content for their work. Authors are advised to consult appropriate guidance such as the Code of Best Practices in Fair Use for Scholarly Research in Communication published by The International Communication Association, and in our guidance on Use of third party materials.
When using datasets, researchers must obtain permission from the owner of the dataset, unless the dataset is publicly available and unrestricted. Data acquired should be kept anonymized unless otherwise advised by the dataset owners. Where participants’ details are not required to be anonymized, authors must be prepared to provide evidence that written informed consent, including consent to publish was obtained from participants.
Authors should include a statement within the manuscript to confirm that they obtained necessary permissions, unless the dataset is publicly available and unrestricted (in which case researchers are encouraged to note this in the manuscript).
Archaeological work involving human remains must comply with all necessary ethical guidelines (including observing best practice in data collection, recording, and deposition) and researchers must obtain all necessary permits from relevant authorities/site owners for access to sites and handling of the human remains prior to conducting the work. An example of such guidelines can be found here: Guidelines to the Standards for Recording Human Remains (Chartered Institute for Archaeologists). Authors must include a statement confirming that all human remains have been treated with dignity and respect.
Authors must provide detailed information about the methods used for the research work and the analysis (including phylogenies). Detailed information must also be provided about the specimens (including numbers and repository information), museum name (if applicable) and geographic location.
If national/international regulations require permits for the research and/or publication of the work, permits must be obtained from the relevant authority and/or site owner. Any discoveries from these sites must be reported to the relevant authorities/site owner prior to submission of the manuscript, as required by relevant authorities. In addition, authors must have obtained permission to study artefacts which could be considered religiously or culturally significant and the provenance of any artefacts should be clearly stated in the manuscript.
In addition to ethical approval, authors must include a statement within the manuscript to confirm that all necessary permits were obtained along with the name of the authority, owner and/or individual who provided it.
Research involving protected heritage sites or within areas such as national parks must comply with all necessary ethical guidelines. Researchers are responsible for obtaining all necessary permits from relevant authorities/site owners before accessing sites, structures, or specimens for research purposes. Additional guidance for consideration can be found in the American Institute for Conservation’s Code of Ethics and the Australia International Council on Monuments and Site’s Burra Charter.
Authors must include a statement within the manuscript to confirm that all necessary permits were obtained along with the name of the authority who provided it.
Authors should consider including content warnings when articles contain particularly graphic or culturally sensitive content (e.g., violence, sexual abuse, human remains).
Authors should consider sex and gender differences in study design, implementation and reporting. We endorse the SAGER guidelines for reporting sex and gender information across disciplines. Authors should ensure that articles adhere to the guidelines. The SAGER checklist can be found here.
Non-stigmatizing and non-discriminatory language should be used when describing groups by race, ethnicity, age, disease, ability, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or other identity category. Where a particular study may necessitate the inclusion of derogatory or offensive language (e.g., direct quotes, transcribed interviews, lyrics, etc.), authors should make clear the scholarly purpose for such terminology.
Scholars using data gathered from social media platforms (e.g., Twitter, Facebook, Tinder) should be aware of national laws and ethical guidance on social media research, such as the ethics statement and framework from Social Data Science Lab and the ethical guidelines for digital research from the British Sociological Association. When researchers are interacting with individuals or obtaining private information, they should obtain ethical approval prior to conducting the study. Researchers should also ensure appropriate anonymization and obtain informed consent from anyone who could potentially be identified.
Please note that not all data can be collected as fair use. Authors must check the social media platform’s user policy or terms of service in the region where the research was conducted to determine whether permission is required from the platform.
Example 1 – Study involving human participants with de-identified data
Ethics
Ethical approval for our study was granted by [Institutional Review Board] on [Date] (approval number: XXXX).
Written informed consent was obtained from all participants for participation in the study and all data has been de-identified to ensure participant anonymity.
Example 2 – Study exempt from ethical approval
Ethics
Our Institutional Review Board [Name of Board] confirmed that Ethical approval was not required for this study, as only de-identified exam results obtained from [University Name] records were used in this study. All data has been anonymised.
If your ethics statement does not fall under the examples given here, or if you have additional questions about research ethics or consent, please let our Editorial team know and we will be happy to advise.
Research should be communicated in a way that supports verification and reproducibility, and as such we encourage authors to provide comprehensive descriptions of their research rationale, protocol, methodology, and analysis.
To aid authors in this, a number of study-design specific consensus-based reporting guidelines have been developed, and we recommend you to use these as guidance prior to submitting your manuscript.
To support clear and comprehensive communication of research, a number of study-design specific consensus-based reporting guidelines have been developed. We recommend authors to use these as guidance prior to submitting their manuscript.
A comprehensive list of reporting guidelines for medicine and health research can be accessed via the EQUATOR network website, and for biosciences research via the MIBBI Foundry portal.
The following reporting guidelines must be adhered to and checklists/flow diagrams uploaded to a data repository as extended data:
Other key reporting guidelines for specific types of studies across different disciplines are listed below:
Full information on the statistical methods and measures used in the research must be included within the manuscript. Authors are encouraged to consult the SAMPL guidelines. Manuscripts may be sent for specialist statistical review if considered necessary.
Due to concerns regarding cross-contamination and misidentification, if human cell lines are used in a study, authors are strongly encouraged to include the following information in their manuscript:
Authors are encouraged to consult the International Cell Line Authentication Committee (ICLAC) and check the NCBI database for misidentification and contamination of human cell lines.
Standardized gene nomenclature should be used throughout the manuscript. Human gene symbols and names can be found in the HUGO Gene Nomenclature Committee (HGNC) database. Alternative gene aliases that are commonly used may also be reported but should not be used alone in place of the HGNC symbol.
For the reporting of sequence variants authors are strongly encouraged to consult the recommendations of the Human Variome Project Consortium for describing sequence variants (Human Genome Variation Society) and phenotypes (Human Phenotype Ontology).
Nomenclature for algae, fungi, plants and animalsStandardized nomenclature for organisms should be used throughout the manuscript, which should be in accordance with International Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi and plants (ICN) and the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN).
Read our guide to registering new names in biological databases.
Nomenclature for allergensStandardized nomenclature for allergenic proteins should be used throughout the manuscript, which should be in accordance with the nomenclature approved by World Health Organization/International Union of Immunological Societies (WHO/IUIS) Allergen Nomenclature Sub-committee.
Chemical compounds nomenclatureThe synthesis of all new compounds must be described in detail, and information to verify the identity and purity should be included. Nomenclature and abbreviations should follow the recommendations from the International Union of Pure and Applied Chemistry (IUPAC).
You must obtain the necessary permission to reuse third-party material in your article. These materials may include – but are not limited to – text, illustration, photographs, tables, data, audio, video, film stills, screenshots, or musical notation.
The use of short extracts of text and some other types of material is usually permitted, on a limited basis, for the purposes of criticism and review without securing formal permission. If you wish to include any material in your paper for which you do not hold copyright, and which is not covered by this informal agreement, you will need to obtain written permission from the copyright owner prior to submission.
It’s common practice for third party content (in part or in whole) to be used in research articles. But, certain conditions must be carefully followed to make sure the use of the third party content is legal.
Use this guidance to fully understand what you must consider before using third party content in your research article.
Throughout this page we use the term third party content. This refers to any content that belongs (whether by copyright or implicit ownership) to someone or something other than yourself.
This may include your own previous work, the work of your co-author/s, the work of another/third party, or data sources.
If you plan to use any third party content in your research, you must fully understand the potential copyright considerations and conditions for reuse. You must comply with these before you consider submitting any work that contains third party content.
In this section we have some examples of various content with different copyright status. Take a look at each example and see what permissions you must gain before you can use the content in your own work.
Below we have outlined the different types of content and guidance on reuse conditions. These are general guidelines and should not be interpreted as legal advice. We recommend that you always check with the copyright owner of the content for any specific reuse conditions, and we may ask for evidence of this on submission. In the event of any dispute over third party content, we will rely on you providing evidence of your right to use the content.
Adaptations
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Adaptation, also known as a derivative work, is alteration of a work from its original form, typically by adding or subtracting an element, but where the original form (the underlying work) is recognisable. This is different than a redrawn work, where only the original idea, but not the form, is recognisable. If the material you wish to adapt is not copyrighted, permission from the creator is required. If the material is copyrighted, follow the CC guidelines. CC licenses that include “ND” indicate “no derivatives,” such that the work cannot be adapted, altered, or otherwise modified in any way.
Algorithms or code
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Algorithms are not copyright protected. Copyright law does not cover ideas, processes, methods, or systems; rather, it is the description or tangible expression of these ideas or systems that is copyrighted. If you want to use an algorithm created by another person, request written permission and attribute the creator in your work.
Artwork (graffiti/street art)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Graffiti/street art is copyright protected by the artist, even if the artwork doesn’t include a copyright license, and even if it was created unlawfully. Make every attempt to identify and contact the original artist to obtain permission to use their copyrighted material. This may involve contacting the owner of the “tagged” property or the local police department. Document the steps you have taken to support your efforts in the event the artist cannot be contacted.
Artwork (in a museum)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
The rights can be retained by the artist; even if the artist has been dead for longer than the out of copyright rule. You should ask the museum for the copyright status in every case.
Artwork (in a repository)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Artwork in a repository: the artist can retain rights, or can transfer the rights to the repository. Sometimes repository owners will also charge a fee to use the artwork.
Books (a third party)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
A book author or their publisher will hold the copyright to a book. If you wish to reuse more than a few sentences for scholarly commentary or criticism, you should contact the copyright owner or rightsholder to obtain permission.
Books (yours)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
You automatically hold the copyright to your book, unless you choose to transfer it to your publisher.
Clipart
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
The use of all Microsoft copyrighted content is subject to permission being given by Microsoft. Commercial reuse (for example, in an academic journal) may be prohibited.
Computer Programs (software, incl. codes)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Computer programs are considered literary works and are covered under US copyright law.
Dance (choreographed works)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
In order for a dance to be copyrighted, it must be original and fixed in a tangible form, like a video recording.
Data set (e.g. on Github)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Data sets that are entirely factual (e.g. a census report) are not copyrighted. However, you should seek explicit permission from the creator prior to use. Data sets that contain a facet of creativity may be copyrighted.
Dramatic works (plays, operas, scripts, screenplays)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Dramatic works are copyright protected in the fixed, tangible form in which they are recorded or documented.
Embargoed content
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Embargos apply if the author is posting the Accepted Manuscript to an institutional or subject repository. Taylor & Francis mandates public access to the final version of an author manuscript twelve (12) months after the publication of the Version of Scholarly Record in science, engineering, behavioural science, and medicine; and eighteen (18) months after first publication for arts, social science, and humanities journals, in digital or print form.
Facebook (screenshot)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Whether a screenshot involves copyright depends on what is captured within the screenshot. If copyrighted work is within the screenshot, for example, an original drawing, the screenshot is also subject to terms of that drawing’s copyright license. A screenshot could be considered a form of reproduction or a derivative work, both of which are subject to copyright terms.
Facebook (text only, no images)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
It is acceptable and commonplace to repost/share Facebook posts (text only) within the same platform or in an embedded format. If you want to include a Facebook post (text only) in your manuscript, you should request permission from the original author. Not all text that users share on Facebook is copyrightable – for example, generic comments like “I support human rights,” is unlikely to be upheld as copyrighted in courts. But even if a post is not copyrightable, you should ask the user for permission before using their post in your manuscript.
Film Stills
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Film stills can be used under Fair Use as long as they are limited in use and the article discusses them directly (i.e. not used solely for illustrative purposes). However, if you are uncertain whether you are covered under Fair Use, seek permission from the Producer or copyright holder.
Flickr
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Use of Flickr images depends on the image and licence applied by author. Images typically include a copyright license on their page. If there is not a license, assume that the image is copyrighted by the photographer and request permission.
Google Earth
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Google Earth is covered under Fair Use, which means you can reuse and modify selections without permission.
Government Report (e.g. census)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Facts and government publications are not copyrightable.
Graffiti
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Graffiti/street art is copyright protected by the artist, even if the artwork doesn’t include a copyright license, and even if it was created unlawfully. Make every attempt to identify and contact the original artist to obtain permission to use their copyright material.
Specific guidance
Original images on Instagram are copyrighted by the creator. Like other social media platforms, reposting or sharing an image within the original platform is generally within the platform’s terms of use. If you wish to share an image outside of the platform, the image is subject to copyright and you must request permission to republish copyrighted material from the original author.
Maps (someone else’s)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Maps are copyrightable and may be considered as a work of art. This includes Google Maps. The exception to this are maps produced by the federal government, such as topographic maps produced by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), which are in the public domain.
Maps (yours)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Original maps, like original art, are copyrightable. You may decide how to copyright your map.
Mathematic equations
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Equations are not copyrightable, but if they are expressed in an original way, that form may be subject to copyright.
Medical Image repository / stock images
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Stock photography are images that are sold for a fee in exchange for a license. The license type varies, but generally grant permission for the purchaser to use the image without seeking additional permission from the creator.
Memes
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Memes are generally fair-use and are themselves derivative (adapted) works. But you need to check if there are identifiable images of people, how/if the meme artist obtained the image, and if consent was required.
Movies
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Movies are copyrighted. If you wish to use a limited number of film stills, see that section. If you wish to reproduce film script, you must request permission from the copyright holder, most likely the Producer.
Music: song lyrics or notation
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Inclusion of movie lyrics or notation in your publication requires permission from the producer. There is no minimum amount of a song or notation that is exempted from copyright.
Newspaper or magazine articles
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Newspaper or magazine articles are copyrighted, most often by the publisher, similar to academic journal articles.
OKCupid (dating websites)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Users who post text or images to a dating website almost always have an expectation of privacy; that is, they would not expect their text or images to be re-used elsewhere, especially without their permission. To use text or images from a dating website, you must obtain written permission from the content creator or host.
Orphan Works
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
An orphan work is one where the creator (copyright holder) cannot be identified or contacted. The use of orphaned works is disputed, but generally is acceptable if it falls within Fair Use or Fair Dealing.
Patents
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
A patented work is an invention and is one of three types of intellectual property (patents, copyright, trademark). Aspects of a patent, such as a diagram of an invention, can be copyrighted, but the function of the machine itself is what is patented. Patents are protected and you must seek explicit permission from the patent holder prior to replicating, or documenting, aspects related to their patent.
Photos (in a digital archive)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Consider whether consent was provided by subjects whose faces are in the database.
Photos (on social media)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Regardless of where a photo is located, the copyright is assigned to the photographer, unless they have explicitly transferred it to someone or something else. Some social media companies hold a license to use the photograph in certain ways, but they generally do not hold the copyright.
Photos (taken by someone else)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Depends on licence. If it’s an unrestricted like CC-BY then citing the source.
Photos (taken by you, of artwork)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Copyright in relation to the artwork pictured.
Photos (taken by you, of people)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Unless you took the picture on behalf of a company, or signed over the copyright, you likely are the copyright holder. If the photo includes people who could be identified, you should obtain permission from those people.
Photos (taken by you, of public space)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Unless you took the picture on behalf of a company, or signed over the copyright, you likely are the copyright holder. You do not need permission to publish a photo you took of a public space.
Photos (taken by you, of your private space)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Unless you took the picture on behalf of a company, or signed over the copyright, you likely are the copyright holder. You do not need permission to publish a photo you took of a private space.
Podcast transcripts
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
A podcast, or a transcript of a podcast, is copyrighted by the producer of that podcast. To republish a transcript or post a recording of the podcast, you should seek explicit permission from the producer.
Poem
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Poems, like other creative works, are copyrighted by the creator, unless they transfer the copyright to a publisher. To republish a poem, you should seek permission from the copyright holder.
Questionnaires or psychometric scale
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Questionnaires and psychometric scales, including the individual questions within them, are copyrighted. However, some questions, such as “what is your favorite color,” may fall into fair use.
Quotes (made privately)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
You must obtain permission from the source of the quote in writing before publishing quotes from private conversations.
Quotes (from published material)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Quotations of published material for the purpose of scholarly commentary or criticism is an expected and permitted aspect of scholarly publishing. Quoted material should be denoted by quotation marks and you should include a citation to the original source. This level of quotation does not require permission because it falls within “fair use.” However, if you wish to quote more than a few sentences, you should contact the copyright holder to obtain permission.
Redrawn figures
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
If you redraw a figure, it must be significantly different from the original – simply redrawing (tracing) the figure does not negate the original copyright status. The redrawn figure must express the idea in a novel way.
Scholarly article (a figure from a third party’s article)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Permission should be sought from the rightsholder; certain journal article figures may be part of the STM Permissions guidelines exceptions.
Scholarly article (a redrawn figure, originally in a third party’s article)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Acceptable if the changes you’ve made transformed the figure’s meaning or expression OR add value or insight. Otherwise, copyright applies.
Scholarly articles (a third party’s work)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Scholarly articles are copyrighted by the author, the publisher, or a combination of the two. If you want to republish an entire article, or large portions of it, you need to obtain permission from the copyright holder. Quoting small sections that are directly relevant to something you are writing is acceptable under Fair Use, as long as you provide an appropriate citation.
Scholarly articles (your article, a prior publication)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
If you publish your article with a commercial publisher, you might have signed copyright over to them. Check the journal-author publishing agreement to see whether you or the publisher hold copyright. Authors typically retain copyright if the article is published open access (OA). In all cases, Taylor & Francis allows authors to freely share and disseminate the Author’s Original Manuscript (AOM), also known as a preprint. The final Version of Record (VOR), which has been peer reviewed, is copyrighted by T&F, unless it is OA.
Scraped data set (from social media, e.g. Facebook, Instagram, YouTube)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Scraped data involves both copyright and privacy/data protection law. In most cases, users retain copyright to their content and, if the content was posted privately, users may have an “expectation of privacy.” Most social media platforms state their scraping policy in their Terms of Use and require explicit permission to scrape.
Tables: data only
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
While data itself cannot be copyrighted, the creative or original display of data can be copyrighted. For example, an author might display data in a table using a pleasing color and font palette. In that case, the table can be copyrighted, but the data itself is not. However, the data may be part of a private data set, in which case you would need to obtain permission regardless of how you present or format the data.
Translation (of your article)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
If the original article is copyrighted, you will need to obtain permission prior to republishing a translation.
Video (abstracts)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
If you use third-party material in your video, such as an existing table or figure, the same copyright rules apply as when these are reused in an article: you must obtain copyright permission from the copyright holder. If you created all of the material in your video and did not reuse anything, then you are the default copyright holder.
Webinars
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Scripted lectures, speeches, and addresses, as well presentations (e.g. slides or videos) are copyrightable. You must obtain permission from the copyright holder if you want to reuse any of these items, whether as a quote or in a recording of your own. The person delivering the speech generally holds copyright, but if it was given as part of an employment contract, the employer may hold the copyright. Beyond copyright, you should ensure the webinar host has consented to sharing of the content outside of the webinar.
Specific guidance
WhatsApp chat users likely have an expectation of privacy, meaning they would not expect their chat to be made public. You must obtain permission from the user prior to sharing or reusing their content, regardless of whether the material is copyrightable.
Specific guidance
Original content shared on WeChat, whether text or photography, is copyrighted by the creator. In addition, because content on WeChat is often shared in private messages, the content creator may have an expectation of privacy, such that you should obtain explicit written permission to share any content outside of WeChat, even if you correctly quote and cite the creator.
X (formerly known as Twitter)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
A tweet may be considered copyrighted if it is original to its author and has a modicum of originality. For example, a retweet is not copyrighted by the secondary tweeter, and a tweet that simply states a fact such as “Abraham Lincoln was an American president” is not copyrightable. Even if you doubt a tweet is copyrightable, you should still obtain permission from the author.
X (Government officials)
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
Tweets from government officials, made in an official capacity, such as from their “official government account,” are considered to be in the public domain and therefore not copyrightable. If a government official tweets from a personal account, it may be copyrightable, in which case you would need to seek permission to reuse.
YouTube
Copyright or permission?
Specific guidance
YouTube videos are copyrighted by their creators. To reuse all or part of a video, you must obtain permission from the creator.
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 (research@f1000.com).
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.