Introduction

Evidence-Based Toxicology is committed to a very high degree of transparency in its processes for manuscript submission and review.

The review process is designed to maximise the value of peer-review for authors, reviewers, and users of research. It is also designed to to ensure accountability for our decisions, allow all involved parties to be credited for their contribution to the manuscript evaluation process, and provide useful information to the users of research about the studies we have evaluated.

Our commitment to transparency and community value means we have an almost unique process for handling submissions. It consists of three main components:

All submissions have to be posted as registered preprints before we will review them
All submissions go through a rigorous, open editorial review (triage) process
Peer-reviewed submissions are assessed in a collaborative, open review process

(2) and (3) are a collaborative review process designed to support researchers in developing their manuscript to be the best submission it can feasibly be, given their capacity and circumstances.

Our process for handling manuscripts is described in detail below, and summarised in flowcharts for single-stage submissions and submissions including protocol preregistration (i.e. Registered Reports or two-stage submissions).

Manuscript submission process

All submitted manuscripts are “preprints”, meaning they describe planned or completed research projects for which the documentation is still in active development.

Authors submit a preprint to EBT by registering it on the EBT Community of the Zenodo.org preprint repository (or suitable alternative). This includes the supplemental materials and reporting checklists that are required for the given submission type.

Authors then submit a copy of the preprint accompanied by a cover letter to EBT via the journal submission system (accessed from the journal website).

<aside> 💡

A note on Peer-Community in Registered Reports

EBT has two submission pathways for manuscripts: direct submissions, and submissions via the Peer Community in Registered Reports (PCI-RR).

PCI-RR submissions should follow the relevant community guidance for Level 1 submissions. Submissions via the direct route will be handled according to the processes below. Detailed instructions for authors of PCI-RR submissions can be found here.

</aside>

Summary of manuscript review process

We review submissions in two stages: editorial triage, where we decide if a manuscript is ready for peer-review (i.e. is it in good enough shape to get a positive, constructive response from the reviewers); and peer-review, where the editor and reviewers decide that enough scientific work as been done for the manuscript to be considered publishable.

Note that all submissions, invited or spontaneous, are reviewed according to the same standards and processes as other submissions within their track (Peer-Community, peer-reviewed, or non-peer-reviewed).

</aside>

We will publish any useful, valid piece of research. It need not be a large contribution to the literature. Having positive results is irrelevant. The contribution may even just be an example of where research has not gone to plan, but from which useful lessons for the community can nonetheless be learned.

The assessment process consists of two stages: editorial review (”triage”), and peer-review. All assessment report and questionnaire templates relating to this process can be accessed via the EBT repository for editorial and workflow assets on the Open Science Framework or in the EBT Wiki.