Electronic revolution in plant taxonomy

This Editorial highlights recent changes to the International Code of Botanical Nomenclature and the implications these changes have for electronic journals

New horizons in Biophysics

This editorial celebrates the re-launch of PMC Biophysics previously published by PhysMath Central, in its new format as BMC Biophysics published by BioMed Central with an expanded scope and Editorial Board. BMC Biophysics will fill its own niche in the BMC series alongside complementary companion journals including BMC Bioinformatics, BMC Medical Physics, BMC Structural Biology and BMC Systems Biology

Retrospective analysis of the quality of reports by author-suggested and non-author-suggested reviewers in journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models.

OBJECTIVES: To assess whether reports from reviewers recommended by authors show a bias in quality and recommendation for editorial decision, compared with reviewers suggested by other parties, and whether reviewer reports for journals operating on open or single-blind peer review models differ with regard to report quality and reviewer recommendations. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of the quality of reviewer reports using an established Review Quality Instrument, and analysis of reviewer recommendations and author satisfaction surveys. SETTING: BioMed Central biology and medical journals. BMC Infectious Diseases and BMC Microbiology are similar in size, rejection rates, impact factors and editorial processes, but the former uses open peer review while the latter uses single-blind peer review. The Journal of Inflammation has operated under both peer review models. SAMPLE: Two hundred reviewer reports submitted to BMC Infectious Diseases, 200 reviewer reports submitted to BMC Microbiology and 400 reviewer reports submitted to the Journal of Inflammation. RESULTS: For each journal, author-suggested reviewers provided reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but were significantly more likely to recommend acceptance, irrespective of the peer review model (p<0.0001 for BMC Infectious Diseases, BMC Microbiology and the Journal of Inflammation). For BMC Infectious Diseases, the overall quality of reviewer reports measured by the Review Quality Instrument was 5% higher than for BMC Microbiology (p=0.042). For the Journal of Inflammation, the quality of reports was the same irrespective of the peer review model used. CONCLUSIONS: Reviewers suggested by authors provide reports of comparable quality to non-author-suggested reviewers, but are significantly more likely to recommend acceptance. Open peer review reports for BMC Infectious Diseases were of higher quality than single-blind reports for BMC Microbiology. There was no difference in quality of peer review in the Journal of Inflammation under open peer review compared with single blind

A Conserved Transcription Factor Mediates Nuclear Control of Organelle Biogenesis in Anciently Diverged Land Plants

Land plant chloroplasts evolved from those found in the green algae. During land plant evolution, nuclear regulatory mechanisms have been modified to produce morphologically and functionally diverse chloroplasts in distinct developmental contexts. At least some of these mechanisms evolved independently in different plant lineages. In angiosperms, GOLDEN2-LIKE (GLK) transcription factors regulate the development of at least three chloroplast types. To determine whether GLK-mediated regulation of chloroplast development evolved within angiosperms or is a plesiomorphy within land plants, gene function was examined in the moss Physcomitrella patens. Gene expression patterns and loss-of-function mutant phenotypes suggested that GLK gene function is conserved between P. patens and Arabidopsis thaliana, species that diverged >400 million years ago. In support of this suggestion, moss genes partially complement Arabidopsis loss-of-function mutants. Therefore, GLK-mediated regulation of chloroplast development defines one of the most ancient conserved regulatory mechanisms identified in the plant kingdom

Research Integrity and Peer Review—past highlights and future directions

Abstract In May 2016, we launched Research Integrity and Peer Review, an international, open access journal with fully open peer review (reviewers are identified on their reports and named reports are published alongside the article) to provide a home for research on research and publication ethics, research reporting, and research on peer review. As the journal enters its third year, we reflect on recent events and highlights for the journal and explore how the journal is faring in terms of gender and diversity in peer review. We also share the particular interests of our Editors-in-Chief regarding models of peer review, reporting quality, common research integrity issues that arise during the publishing process, and how people interact with the published literature. We continue to encourage further research into peer review, research and publication ethics and research reporting, as we believe that all new initiatives should be evidence-based. We also remain open to constructive discussions of the developments in the field that offer new solutions

Ten considerations for open peer review [version 1; referees: 2 approved]

Open peer review (OPR), as with other elements of open science and open research, is on the rise. It aims to bring greater transparency and participation to formal and informal peer review processes. But what is meant by `open peer review', and what advantages and disadvantages does it have over standard forms of review? How do authors or reviewers approach OPR? And what pitfalls and opportunities should you look out for? Here, we propose ten considerations for OPR, drawing on discussions with authors, reviewers, editors, publishers and librarians, and provide a pragmatic, hands-on introduction to these issues. We cover basic principles and summarise best practices, indicating how to use OPR to achieve best value and mutual benefits for all stakeholders and the wider research community