In this episode our Scientific Officer, Alexandra, is joined by editors from Cell, Nature Reviews and Molecular Oncology to discuss the process of scientific publishing: from the steps involved, including the peer review stage, to choosing the best home for your research; from preprints to peer-reviewed journals; from APCs and how to get a discount to the importance of engaging in an open conversation about your research with editors even prior to your paper submission.
Listen here, scroll down for the transcript and subscribe now via Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music/Audible, Deezer or YouTube so you’ll never miss an episode. You can find all episodes and their transcripts here.
Our guests in this episode:
- Ruzhica Bogeska, Managing Editor at Molecular Oncology
- Maria Papatriantafyllou, Senior Editor at Nature Reviews’ cross-journal team
- Sri Narasimhan, Deputy Editor at Cell
And our host: Alexandra Boitor, EACR Scientific Officer.
Episode transcript
Alexandra: The importance of scientific publishing is undeniable. The first thing that comes to mind is the opportunity to disseminate the results of new experiments to inform the audience about new concepts or advancements in a scientific field. Scientific publishing contributes to the development of the scientific community by enabling communication between scientists who had worked in isolation from one another.
Journals are a centerpiece of the scientific publishing enterprise. By facilitating results dissemination, journals supply information that help scientists develop new hypotheses, thus providing a foundation for new scientific discoveries to be built. But equally, important journals play a crucial role in ensuring the validity of the published data, offering a certain authenticity to scientific discoveries.
My first question for you would be, what happens when someone submits a paper? Who takes the first look at the paper, and how is the decision to send or not to send the manuscript for peer review taken?
Ruzhica: So this would somewhat depend on the structure of the journal, and I think we could all share our experiences. So when a paper gets submitted, first it is screened for some technical details and whether it goes in line with author guidelines that the journal has, and the editorial office will check for these details. After that, it goes to triage where it is evaluated for the scope and, whether it is fitting for the journal, whether it is original or what other merits are there for the paper. After that, these papers are either assigned to the Editor in Chief who then has an additional evaluation of the paper, and they are then assigned to an academic editor who is an expert in the field. Further down the line, the paper goes to peer review.
Maria: Yeah, I could add some other aspects that might be going on after the submission of a paper in other research journals that do not have an external editorial board. I’m working, for example, with Nature Research journals that have in house professional editors. In that case, after the initial checks that are performed by editorial assistants, papers are assigned to one of the editors of the team, who assesses them for completeness, quality, novelty, and relevance for the journal and summarises the paper, the strengths and weaknesses, so that this can be discussed with the team and the Chief Editor.
And after some discussions about all submissions, there is some consensus as to whether the paper will be sent out for peer review, and whether it is suitable for the journal or should be rejected or transferred to another journal. And, of course, the peer review process is the most common feature for all journals, I would suppose.
Ruzhica: Also I would like to add that recently there are different models of papers which are heavy on evaluating preprints. So the first phase of evaluating the manuscript is based independently of the journal, or so called the journal agnostic. So initiatives like Review Commons are using these models where the initial evaluation is done externally from the journal and later where the preprint has been peer reviewed independently of the journal. Then the authors have the chance to select which journal they would like to consider. And the revision process is later on continued within the journal. So for example, FEBS Press recently became affiliated with this initiative.
Alexandra: Thank you. It sounds like, regardless of the journal you choose to send your papers to, it’s going to be very thoroughly checked. I think it would be best to discuss about the peer review process and how it normally works. Could you cast a bit of light on that for all of our listeners?
Maria: Yeah, so there are several models of peer review and I think journals have adopted different types of peer review, probably, but the basic line is that once the peer review paper is, considered as fitting to a journal, the editors send it out for peer review. They screen for reviewers and select them on their publication record or perhaps also work that they’ve done, they have recently presented at conferences. Reviewers are selected, so as they can cover different aspects of a manuscript and, for Nature Research journals, I would say that three reviewers are very often required.
During that process, the peer reviewers will be with specific guidelines, so that they can screen the paper for quality, for integrity, for accessibility, and provide constructive feedback and detailed comments that will improve the manuscript, as well as give editors some insight as to whether this manuscript is suitable for the specific journal.
Alexandra: This leads a bit to my question that I had earlier. In the model that Ruzhica presented earlier, where you add the paper on a preprint platform and submit it to a journal only after peer review, who chooses the reviewers and ensures there’s no conflict of interest involved?
Ruzhica: So these initiatives have been started from ASAPbio and Review Commons, and they have their dedicated teams who then assign reviewers to this manuscript. And just to mention that authors initially have to respond to these comments by providing a plan, so they would not need to conduct to the end, the review process, for example, they wouldn’t need to do extensive experiments at this point. So this type of reviewer report will be later evaluated within the journal. So this is a model that is initiated and currently handled by Review Commons and they’re expanding on their affiliate journals. So then authors would have several options to choose.
Alexandra: Thank you very much. And how can someone become a reviewer? Because my understanding is that each journal has its list of reviewers that they work with. So how could someone become a reviewer?
Maria: There isn’t necessarily a list that we resort to when looking for reviewers. The basic priority is to identify the right specialists that are well placed to review a manuscript. So the basic criterion is that the reviewers are experts in certain areas that are relevant to the paper.
So this is, as I said, based on their previous publication record or results they have recently presented at conferences. Generally, I would say, it’s common that a researcher finds that the number of invitations to review increases as they progress in their careers. But at Nature Reviews or Nature Research journals, we see the importance of involving early career researchers into peer review and at Nature Reviews, we actively recommend reviewers to co-review with an early career colleague from their lab, and this is a nice way to enter into this world of peer review with the help of a more senior colleague, perhaps. So the journals provide detailed guidelines to early career reviewers and reviewer reports are co-signs and early career researchers can receive recognition for their provided input and this will help them further build a record to become more involved in the peer review process with the years.
Ruzhica: I agree with Maria. I think this is very common for many journals, also for Molecular Oncology. The same aspects apply, and I agree also that it’s very useful and important to involve early career scientists in the review process and fostering them to become reviewers. And a few tips for early career researchers that would like to get more experience and get involved, is to network with editors when they attend conferences. Also they could become a member of a society, the EACR or FEBS, let’s say, and then in this area, they could network with other members and discuss any potential opportunities. Always seeking mentorships from senior colleagues. It’s helpful. And if I’m not mistaken, some journals also offer mentoring for early career researchers that would like to become reviewers.
A route which also we have seen in Molecular Oncology is that the journal is contacted from people that would like to become reviewers, and then they provide information about their academic paths and field of expertise, and then they could be considered to review articles for the journal.
Alexandra: Going back a bit to the conversation we had earlier with preprint, are there any risks associated with publishing a preprint first before submitting your paper to a journal?
Maria: So, I would think that, on the contrary, sharing preprints can offer some benefits to researchers. And this is that they can claim priority of their discoveries, they can receive community input in the format that Ruzhica mentioned earlier, or they can demonstrate some evidence of their progress for funders or others.
Springer Nature encourages authors actually to submit or to deposit preprints prior to submitting their manuscripts because this also accelerates research and helps advance discovery. So I see no risks there. I only see some points that authors should take into consideration while preparing their manuscript as a preprint and while selecting a preprint server. And I think that authors have to be first of all conscious that it’s their responsibility to ensure that the preprinted record is updated with any corrections during the process or with a publication reference, including the URL link to the published version of their paper on the journal website once the paper is published.
Authors could also think carefully about what type of license they apply to their paper preprint. I know that at Springer Nature we support all varieties of licenses, including Creative Commons, but authors should be aware that the type of license they choose might affect how the preprint will be shared or reused. So it would be nice to check some guidelines on licensing for preprints, for example, at the ASAP bio website.
And of course, as you mentioned, it’s always important to keep in mind how we are citing preprints. They should be clearly labeled as SATs, as non previewed material. And in cases authors are contacted by the media in response to a preprint so that they provide explanation or comments about their work and the context of their work. It’s always important and it’s a responsibility of the author to make it clear that this work is still a preprint and it hasn’t been peer reviewed so that there is no misleading in terms of how it is communicated to the general public, but these all are only considerations and not direct risks, for someone using preprint depositories.
Ruzhica: I would just like to add one point to Maria’s points, that if authors are considering to apply for a patent application, they should initially check this with the technology or intellectual property office, their institutes, whether publishing the preprint would have some negative influence on the whole process. But generally, I would advise authors to consider the pros and cons of publishing a preprint really specifically for each paper, and there could be many details to having the preprint published at a certain time, they should really consider when they would like to publish the preprint, because this could be done much in advance, but then the risk is that the work that is posted is maybe premature or incomplete. Authors may decide to publish the preprints together at the same time when submitting to a journal, which then is the same version. Or maybe when the paper is with the journal, because I guess some publishers have certain models where they put online papers that are being considered for the journal.
Alexandra: Thank you. Moving on with the process, after the peer review, the authors usually find out if their paper could be accepted, usually subject to some suggested changes, or if their paper was rejected. In the unfortunate eventuality that the paper was rejected, is there any way that someone could appeal a rejection decision for a submitted paper?
Ruzhica: Yes, certainly. So, this is always a possibility and it is important that authors really take seriously the criticism of reviewers and pay attention to the decision letters. They should be considerate and rational about why they would like to have their papers reconsidered to be published in the journal. Also many journals have well established rebuttal procedures and one piece of advice is always be patient because it is clear that rejecting an article comes with a lot of emotions for the authors but one has to be patient. Usually the editors and reviewers, try to be constructive and positive about dealing with the papers.
Maria: Yeah I would really like to emphasise on that point because I also find it very important and the truth is that we have all received rejection letters at one point in our careers, and we know that they come with very intense emotions of frustration and disappointment. And I recognise the fact that the authors of a paper, they are the absolute experts in the topic they are researching and they obviously submitted a manuscript believing that their study is very complete and ready for publication and that they have selected the right journal.
So it’s very important to always take a step back to process all these emotions and then look at the decision and the consideration of making an appeal or not, with a very cold mind. And, also considering what is best for your work and for your research, is it the best strategy to proceed with an appeal or to pursue publication as fast as possible in another journal.
And I really like to stress the point that editors actually want to help authors find a clear path to publication. And, they very often include comments in the decision letter that highlights the parts that need further development or they might, recommend transferring to another more specialised journal. It is worth considering that before making an appeal.
But of course, if there are very concrete and scientific reasons that will support the appeal, of course authors can make an appeal and editors will look at this appeal. Just it will not be prioritised over new submissions, and this will bring some further delay in the publication of their work. This is a very important consideration for authors.
Alexandra: Thank you very much for your answer, Maria. And Sri, thank you for joining us. So I’ll move on with the conversation. I’ve started with the more negative perspective, to put it that way, but do you have any advice for how one could respond to a reviewer’s report if the paper was accepted but there are some suggested changes? For instance, does one have to do all the changes or experiments suggested in the reviewer’s report in order to get their paper published? Sri, would you like to take this question?
Sri: Yes, thank you. I think this is a very good question, a question that, as a receiver of the information authors get often and are really trying to peruse how much of that is critical for this publishable unit, which is a paper, and how much of it is actually relevant to other studies in the lab that may be, you know, forthcoming or might be beyond the scope. So I think it’s a conversation at the end of the day. Most reviewers, there is reviewer training as well. There are, I think, questions on how the conclusions of study can be best supported and what is the kind of revision needed to address that. I think making that clear can be helpful and what are maybe the limitations of the study and what are elements for future studies. If that is clear from the author’s end, but also from the reviewers in terms of what they’re asking for, I think that creates less of a barrier overall towards getting the paper published.
And to make it very clear that, you know, every study is meant to spark more hypotheses and more questions and hopefully more follow ups down the road. So I think that kind of conversation and dialogue between editors, the authors, the reviewers, I think can help everyone come on the same page,
Maria: Yeah, I completely agree with Sri, and I would like to add that Nature Reviews and Nature Research journals, editors guide authors during the revision process. So we do evaluate review reports and provide very concrete guides about what points would be addressed and what points might be peripheral and not as emphasised, and I think this is also the type of feedback that our authors seem to receive very positively. So my suggestion would be to, first of all, read carefully the decision letter and the editor points as well as all review reports and try to address all reviewer points.
Depending also on priorities, resources, and some editor recommendations, new experiments, or you can address some peripheral points in the review reports, just by arguing how these could be addressed in some future work. And an important aspect is to involve statisticians as early as possible during the process to make sure that all new results are well integrated in the manuscript and I would also like to say that it’s not advisable to ignore any points in the review reports. You can address all of them with some argumentation or experimentally depending on priorities, but they must all be addressed and have a clear point by point response when submitting a revised manuscript.
Ruzhica: I agree with all that is said before, and I mean, also the advice to authors, it’s always an investment to really produce a good response to reviewer comments. So this is a paper that is intended to be of good quality, so complete, polite, and supported by evidence, because even if the paper is rejected, this may come in handy in the future. So, there options like publishing a fast track publication, this is also existing in Molecular Oncology, where authors can submit this, their previous answer, reply to reviewers and the decision letters and their manuscript will be considered for publication based acceptance, basically based on this report. So it’s a smart investment, I would think, for getting the paper out there.
Sri: One aspect to all of this, when I referred to dialogue, is clarity, right? I think authors are often wondering, what is it that I’m not seeing that goes into the decision making process? And I think minimising that and being very clear, but also for reviewers to see each other’s reviews made on a paper, I think, can also be immensely helpful, as opposed to, I didn’t really see this for these reasons. And every paper is quite interdisciplinary, even in the cancer field, right? People are going to be coming at it from many different angles and areas of expertise. So, if a paper doesn’t make it, what are those reasons? Or if there are reasons for a significant revision, what are those? And I think reviewers seeing each other’s I think also can help sort of balance their own expectation for, alright, I thought this was important, but I see what the other reviewers are saying. Or they might say, no, actually, this is really, really important for the study for you to address. So I think that when you refer to feelings, I think some of that can also be addressed and alleviated by bringing everyone on the same page as best as possible.
Alexandra: Changing the subject a little bit, I’m wondering whether you could give a couple of pieces of advice to authors especially early career researchers. One question I had as an early career researcher, and I suppose others have as well, is regarding how you choose the journal to submit your work, and to be a bit more exact, I’m wondering, in your opinion, is it worth holding off publishing your work to gather more data and hopefully publish in a journal that has a higher impact factor? Or would it be best to publish the data you have as soon as reasonably possible to make sure that no one else publishes before you?
Sri: Can I take a stab at this first? It’s a question very close to my heart. If you look me up on the Cell editor’s profile, I actually have something specific calling out to early career researchers, because I think the training system in science is often a little bit of a microcosm. You learn from your mentors and some of that philosophy comes through and some of the training I had as well was doing everything the reviewers asked for. Don’t talk to the editor or it’s very tricky or you don’t talk to each other about your work because save everything until your paper’s really out. And the first thing needs to be really big and through all of your resources there. And I think in reality, now 12 years as an editor at Cell and having published many, many, many PIs’ first papers out of their lab, I think there’s some important learning lessons from the editorial side as well. And something that I would like to share, first of all, which is that it’s never too early to talk about your science, especially to an editor, right?
It could be at a meeting like EACR, or it could be any conference. Early days is fine. And I think as a PI, you know, the story that you want to tell the best, you know where it came from, you will know where it’s kind of going. What I don’t want to do as an editor is have that work be all consuming that everybody’s projects and everything is thrown into that in light of getting a big paper. It’s not so much the volume, I think it’s more what the question is being asked and what will come after this. So that kind of unit, the best person to talk about that is the PI, and to have that dialogue early on. And I think the dialogue can also help set expectations about what is this study going to cover, and maybe for a certain journal that it needs something.
I mean, let’s say maybe human data or maybe it needs mechanism. On the flip side, actually, maybe this doesn’t need mechanism. Maybe it doesn’t need to be all that because it’s the first of many exciting studies to come in a new topic area. And you wouldn’t actually know that until you have that kind of conversation with the editor, with your peers. So yeah, I think there’s just no one formula for, like, save everything first, get that first big paper out. I mean, that first paper matters a lot, but regardless, I think of the journal and the IF, and I know that this is a loaded topic because lots of decisions are made on this, but I do think a very good first paper, if it goes to a very good topical journal that the community reads, I think that’s just as good for the PI as whether they get it at Cell, Science or Nature. I think that’s just something I want to convey. And many times with conversations with early career PIs, I’ve actually had the flip side conversation where I say, I don’t think you need all this for submission or for review or, if that’s a separate paper, that’s a separate paper.
You have a structure of this. It doesn’t need to be a part of this, right? How much of it needs to go in there, and how much of that actually impacts your storytelling for like what this paper meant to be. I think what the focus needs to be on. And I actually love preprints. I’m just going to put it out there that that helps so many people in the community.
You know, often we get like, oh, this is the first paper out of my lab. My student’s trying to graduate. My postdoc’s trying to find a job. All of those things coming together, like absolutely go ahead. Put it on a preprint server, whatever you need to do, but on my side, what I’m asking is have that dialogue, have that conversation, with the editor and at Cell Press, we’re all out there, really trying to do this and trying to alleviate any kind of misconceptions that may cause more pressure on what is already a very high pressure environment for an early career researcher.
Ruzhica: So I think that also a lot of these decisions are dependent on where the researchers are based. For example, for PhD students, depending on their universities or the states where they do the research, they are required at some point to hold their PhD degree to have published their first author paper, which then gives an additional pressure because these studies are time limited to a few years. And I think that becomes challenging, to have a first outer paper that is reviewed and a preprint review. In some cases is not sufficient to graduate.
Also when discussing this with students and PIs that are guiding the students, this can be a challenge. And often they would decide to even publish a very preliminary story or something that is at the beginning. In a way, don’t have the chance to consider publishing a more complete and more impactful paper, but there are also other instances where the publishing of big papers is preferred and then also early career scientists, PhDs or postdoc stay in the lab for quite a long time, and then they will need to then have other challenges related to their career. So it’s a complex topic, but discussion should always be there.
Maria: Yeah, I agree with both of you. It’s very important to look for the editors at conferences and discuss, present your work, discuss with them about your work. And what is very important is what lies within the core of your research? Is it something that is exceptionally novel assessed in a broad context that would be worth investing a lot of time and resources so as to make a great paper out of it? Is it something that has very visible implications for health and society, then again, it’s worth the resources and the time to develop a great paper out of it. But it might also be a more specialised topic, equally important, and it would be best placed in a journal that resonates with a specific topic and is addressed to a specific audience that will value your work.
So it’s not always a question of publishing in a top journal or not. It’s a question of what’s the right home for your paper. Once you have been able to answer this question, everything else will come more naturally.
Alexandra: I think that casts a lot of light in answer to this question. And for me, at least, the take home message was to always look for that editor at the conference and have an honest conversation with them about your research, but also about your circumstances. On a similar note, in terms of choosing a journal, I have another question where I would appreciate your advice on behalf of especially early career researchers, because I feel like this part with choosing the journal contributes a lot the publishing anxiety.
So the question I have is how can one recognise a predatory journal, especially at the beginning of their career when maybe you’re not quite ready or you’re not in the right circumstances to aim for the higher journals, which you know, you can trust. How can you distinguish a predatory journal from an honest journal that’s just starting to take off or starting to take shape.
Maria: I would encourage authors to check and ensure that they submit to a publisher, that they are confident they will rigorously review their research and they will ensure that their paper is maintained in perpetuity and if uncertain they could get advice from their supervisor or peers and if possible also from their librarians.
Sri: I agree. I think that’s really good advice. The flip side is that it’s a great thing that there are many, many different publishing options for any field, right? Like I alluded to earlier that every field is so interdisciplinary, your audience is always much broader than you think it actually is. Even if you think that this is a focused point, how many people are really interested in this? There is a broader audience, so there is a swath of journals available across different publishers, as well as established publishers, but I do think that these guiding points, talking to the librarians, just looking and talking to your peers, even if it seems daunting for some reason to seek advice from mentors or more senior colleagues, but it’s definitely your peers. I think that should be a way to really see where is your field publishing, right? Where are your colleagues publishing? Where are they submitting? And what are their experiences from there? I think that kind of peer to peer support can go a long way in hopefully trying to reduce these pretty awful experiences of falling victim to predatory journals, of which there are several, unfortunately.
Ruzhica: Also as a follow up on our previous discussion, it’s good to talk to editors because, if you talk to editors, you get to know which journal they work for, but they’ll also give you maybe more information on the journals that are with their publisher or maybe they have knowledge and which are the predatory journals out there. But also there are some small signs that early research scientists could be on the lookout for. So predatory journals often give promises that look very appealing. So they would promise that a rapid publication would be there, article processing fees could be really low. It’s always a good idea to check if the journal is indexed and the email address is legit. Basically there are small giveaways that, if you’re not sure or you doubt that the person or the messages you’re receiving are maybe not legit, then maybe you should investigate deeper.
Alexandra: I’m sure our listeners will find that very useful. And I’ve got only one more question for you, Ruzhica, you’ve mentioned APC feeds, and I feel like that’s an issue, especially for those located in low and middle income countries, and one concern when it comes to publishing are those APC fees. Can you please elaborate on how they work? How are discounts and waivers offered? I know that Molecular Oncology and perhaps Nature and Cell have similar agreements. And I’m talking about transformative agreements. How do they work and how can they be accessed by authors?
Ruzhica: Yes, so article publication fees are there because there is a lot of work and logistics about each paper. So ensuring a certain quality and, getting the paper out, , so that it’s with good, language, like image integrity is checked. So it becomes liable. So it gets advertised and it reaches the attention in the community, that’s all part of why these fees are there, and much more. But most recently I think for all publishers, including Wiley, which is the publisher behind Press Journal for Molecular Oncology, are aiming at getting open access publishing moving forward. So this comes with additional costs and different publishers have their own ways of dealing with covering open access publication fees. Open access, I think we all agree, is very important and makes all research available to everyone, but it comes with a cost. So the initiatives for publishing open access out there and, for example, there are the transformative agreements that aim at helping authors to cover this publication.
How these fees are waived depends on the publishing model of the journal. So hybrids, open access journals, are covered better with waiving these open access publication fees, and also there are some discounts for journals that publish fully open access. So there could be discounts related to membership to a certain society or the institution where the author is based could be paying these fees. And there are more global initiatives like Research for Life that is supporting researchers coming from developing countries. So they could be either full waivers of publishing an open access article or some discounts depending on where the researchers are coming, so it’s always good to check the webpage of the publisher in the journal see whether the author is eligible for a waiver or a discount.
Maria: Similarly, Springer Nature is committed to supporting open access publication and the transition to open access. And that’s why they have in place waivers for authors from less well funded countries who wish to publish open access, and they support them in various ways. There are full waivers for authors from low income countries. There may be discounts for authors from lower to middle income countries. And in addition, authors that are in financial need, they could contact journals independently of their country of residence and request and APC discount.
And of course, we have transformative agreements standing, which are negotiated between the publisher, in this case, Bring Your Nature, but I believe all publishers have such agreements in place and funding bodies or institutional consortia. And through these agreements, authors are able to publish open access in a broad spectrum of journals no cost to themselves. So it’s worth checking with your librarian again or your institute whether open access publication to one of the journals of interest is discovered through these agreements. As Ruzhica mentioned, Springer Nature also supports research for life with no cost or low fee access to research published in any our journals in low and middle income countries, as well as offers access to research Nature masterclasses that are online training courses, for free to researchers from lower income countries. And hopefully all these can support scientists while transitioning to open access publishing.
Sri: Yeah, I think that was beautifully summarised by both of my colleagues here and I think, very similarly, you know, I won’t repeat everything. I think there are a lot of points raised here that apply to Cell Press as well. I think one common theme for all of this is that this is an evolving landscape, right? As more funders, more organisations adopt and mandate OA, it’s really important that everyone be on a similar discussion table so that it doesn’t immediately affect papers that are under active consideration, or it doesn’t preclude submission because all publishers are actively working with all the different stakeholders to try and help. Bottom line is we want scientists and doctors and just the community to be able to publish their work and to guide them in that process. So it is actively evolving, on behalf of Cell Press, you know, I think this is probably also relevant elsewhere, but society partnerships can also help with waivers and discounts, like the Springer Nature masterclasses. There’s Elsevier Research Academy as well. That is a really useful resource for training and for these kinds of questions in case of wanting to submit, but having to think about all of these different factors, whether I can even submit to begin with because of the mandates that I have for my funding body or my organisation.
And then, more recently, I think there was a perception that all right, how much of this really applies to the more top journals, right? Like, self pressed journals versus broader Elsevier journals or all of these is there still an inaccessibility problem. There aren’t a lot of self pressed journals are also participating in this more tiered pilot where these discounts depend on the need based cases, the research for life academic, organisation mandates, but also just a regional sort of stratification and discounts based on the income status of the country.
And this is again decided with consultation of those countries, where are they sitting? What are their needs? And I think that will be evolving, but several self pressed journals are also active participants in that kind of more regional discount policy as well. So as this evolves, so will our policy and hopefully we can all find a way to still publish really good science from all over the world.
Alexandra: Thank you, Sri , Maria and Ruzhica for having this little chat with me today and for helping us in the process of trying to demystify, publishing for researchers. So thank you very much for your time.
Enjoyed it? Stay curious with The Cancer Researcher Podcast. Subscribe now via Spotify, Apple Podcasts, Google Podcasts, Amazon Music/Audible, Deezer or YouTube so you’ll never miss an episode. You can find all episodes and their transcripts here.
Suggest a topic for a future episode: What would you love to learn more about? Click here to give us your topic suggestions in a short online form. We warmly welcome your ideas and input!
