First published paper. The review can begin


This webpage uses cookies. If you continue to use it, you agree to our cookie policy. More info here. OK

First published paper. The review can begin

Tomas Zvolensky, 7 August 2019

#MakePublishingGreatAgain, #AcWri, #AcademicLife, #GetYourManuscriptOut, #AmWriting, #AmReading, #PhDchat, #ECRchat, , #Frelsi, #PublishOrPublish

We are very excited and happy to announce inaugural paper published in Frelsi! Associate professor Okan Yuruduseven and associate professor Michael Elsdon written a review paper on Indirect Microwave Holography and Through Wall Imaging. We are very grateful for the confidence and boldness! It takes courage to take a step into uncharted territory, which publishing with Frelsi definitely is as of now!

In a traditional journal, the paper is considered finished once published. In Frelsi, publication is a beginning. After initial screening and formatting, paper is assigned a DOI and is publicly available to anyone. However, it is clearly indicated that the peer review process has just started with the publication.

We use publish first, review after publishing model. The benefit of this model is that authors do not have to wait for extensive periods of time to have their work published. The peer review is done by qualified experts in the field of the paper topic. The authors drive the publishing process - they select the potential reviewers (who comply with the COI restrictions), because they know best who has enough expertise to judge their work. Our part of the job is to make sure that the suggested reviewers indeed do not have a conflict of interests. Until at least three reviewers accept the invitation, we keep inviting suitable researchers. 

Frelsi uses open peer review - the identities and reports of the reviewers are public. Unlike the traditionally used blind peer review (in electrical engineering journals), open peer review promotes transparency and fairness on both sides. The common argument that reviewers cannot be honest in their criticism simply does not apply. One can always be critical while open, it just takes civility and decency to express criticism constructively. The advantage of the openness is authority balance and transparency. If done right, it is a beautiful example of how the community naturally ensures fairness and rigor of the review at the same time. Every registered user can comment or submit a concern in case there is a reason to think that the review or the reply to it is not reasonable or objective.

After the authors address the reviewers comments and concerns, a new version of the paper is published with a new DOI. The old version remains public with clearly indicated state of review. The new version of the paper contains also the reviews and authors’ replies to them to make it clear what changes were implemented.

The paper goes through the review rounds until it receives critical amount of acceptance statuses: at least two reviewers give the paper ‘accepted’ status, or one ‘accepted’ and two ‘accepted with restrictions.’ Then the peer review is officially over. The paper is considered finished and is indexed in bibliographic databases such as Google Scholar, Scopus, etc.

As a part of addressing the issues academic publishing faces, even the ‘accepted’ papers are always open to minor revisions or comments as a mechanism for broader quality assurance from the scientific community.


"We believe scientific publications should be freely accessible to anyone. Science drives humanity forward in all aspects of life. Sharing and open conversation drives science forward. Publishing quickly, openly, with fair peer review matters more than ever. Publish in Frelsi and accelerate the impact of your research!"



You can comment when you sign in.