The first article in our journal illustrates three of our major editorial policies, around protocol publication, use of preprints, and transparency of decision-making processes. See the full manuscript here: https://t.co/5KwtEMeSvK

New evaluation report, for a protocol for proof-of-concept demonstration of automated data extraction in an evidence mapping context. A challenge to structure the planned methods. Asked for revisions and look forward to seeing the next draft.

Stay updated by email: We are setting up a regular newsletter to provide updates on new submissions, evaluation reports, webinars and journal clubs, developments in editorial policy, and other things that may be of interest to our readers. Subscribe here:

Open peer review is still annoyingly tricky to implement at journals in a clean and intuitive way. One challenge is connecting reviews to manuscripts. We are looking at medRxiv as providing a potential solution.

A new preprint submitted to our journal. It is the second in a series by the same research group (disclosure: I am part of it, but do not decide the receiving journal). Hopefully, it will prove very interesting!

We are now officially a Real Journal, with our first paper published yesterday! 🥳

OK, so this is partly a systems check where your editor is submitting his own manuscript to ensure our processes work, but in his opinion (and that of the reviewers!) this is interesting work. Revision process is fully open, evaluation reports are here:

You know they are good at open data because the link previews for their website content look really neat. :)

One of our policies is help author use open data standards to facilitate finding and reuse of their work. We find the ODI guidebook on open data to be a very useful resource, making something complicated relatively easy to understand. For example, this:

Just trying to figure out how to evaluate expert commentary submissions to the journal. ChatGPT proving tremendously useful once again - this is the kind of guidance that can easily be converted into a v1 appraisal questionnaire.

You like additional information? Here is some additional information! https://t.co/mGlxLXoE09 Project is being coordinated by @OSFramework with @NoahHaber cracking the whip.

We are very excited to announce that we have signed up to a randomised trial that will investigate how a registered-reports style process for manuscript revisions can help (and/or hinder?) the peer-review process. More details coming soon!

An example of how one could fill out our DOI form, as provided by the EiC.

This is why we have quite rigorous declaration of interest templates for our journal. We need this information to assess whether interests have been managed (by us or the researchers), but we don't view a declared interest as a de facto conflict in any way.

Your EiC is annotating focus group transcripts, where researchers discuss how bias can be introduced into studies. Each group agreed that lack of agreed protocol potentially biases research - which is why journals (er like mine ahem) need to step up and review & publish them.

If you like a sneaky peaky, this is the presentation I am doing for the Navigation Guide webinar tomorrow (Tuesday). It's on what I learned about improving the quality of SRs @env_int_journal and we are implementing for all submission types at EBT.

NEW. A brief summary of the vision, mission, and flagship editorial policies of our journal. Includes an overview of the reasons for the policies (more detail forthcoming in an editorial, watch this space). Thoughts, questions always welcome! https://t.co/EnX3y7Rwyi

In case you missed it, your Editor-in-Chief was on the Reproducibilitea podcast earlier this year, hoping not to make a fool of himself while talking about citational politics.

We are an open science journal and I am *extremely pleased* to announce that we will be doing a CEC course on open science practices in research and publishing at #SOT2024 on 10 March. It'll cost a few quid but we have a great line-up and hope to make it worth your while!

Huge thanks to @DrKaitlynHair and Catherine Gibbons for excellent reviewer comments. 👍