Access Microbiology is an innovative open research platform.

Back to Access Microbiology's group page

Who we are

As a sound science, open research platform, Access Microbiology offers a new service for members of our community to disseminate their work rapidly, transparently and rigorously. The platform is owned by the Microbiology Society, a not-for-profit membership organisation serving the microbiology community. Access Microbiology supports the publication of replication studies, negative or null results, research proposals, data management plans, additions to established methods, case reports, software development, educational and outreach methods, and interdisciplinary work. We welcome work from all branches of microbiology and virology.

Our evaluation model

Unlike traditional journal publishing, the peer review process of Access Microbiology has been completely turned inside out, so that the entire lifecycle of the article is posted publicly on the platform for all to see. This includes posting all versions of the article as a preprint, and posting the peer reviews and the Editor’s decision alongside these, thereby increasing the transparency of the peer review process. The platform has a mandatory Open Data policy and incorporates various manuscript Review Tools during the submission process, allowing authors to improve their article right from the very beginning of the peer review process.

  1. Submission: authors are directed to run their article through the manuscript Review Tool, Penelope.ai to check it complies with the platform's article, editorial and ethical policies. Once they have made the necessary changes, they submit the article to our peer review system. Authors select which Creative Commons license their preprints should be posted under and indicate whether they want their article returned to them to correct based on the Review Tool reports, or if they would like their preprint to be posted online immediately.
  2. Review Tools scan article: iThenticate report is generated and the Editorial Office performs the standard ethical and editorial compliance checks.
  3. Preprint and Review Tool reports posted online: the article is posted publicly online as a preprint in PDF format with a citable DOI, meaning authors can gain credit for their work and start receiving community feedback. The most recent reports from the manuscript Review Tools are also posted alongside the preprint. The preprint is indexed in Europe PMC and Google Scholar to increase discoverability.
  4. Peer review: the preprint is assigned to an Editor and it undergoes transparent peer review. If necessary, the Editor may request that the authors revise their article before sending it to reviewers.
  5. Editor decision and review reports posted online: once the Editor makes their recommendation, the reviewer reports and Editor’s decision and comments are posted online with their own DOIs. Whilst all reviews are posted alongside the article, reviewers can choose to remain anonymous if they wish. Editorial decisions can be Accept, Minor Amendment, Major Revision, or in rare circumstances, No Longer Under Review. See the glossary of Access Microbiology’s editorial and peer review terms for more information.
  6. Revision: the authors revise their article and re-submit to the peer review system. The revision and author response to reviewers is posted as a new preprint. The Editor assesses the new version for improvements, and can make a final decision or send out for re-review, if necessary.
  7. Accepted: once the Editor considers the article to be significantly improved and it is scientifically sound, they will recommend an Accept decision.
  8. Version of Record published and indexed: the article is fully copyedited and typeset in our platform style and branding, published on the platform in full-text HTML and a PDF, and deposited in PubMed, PubMed Central, and other indexing services.

PReF

Sciety uses the PReF (preprint review features) descriptors to describe key elements of each Group's evaluation activities, helping readers to interpret and compare their evaluations. Learn more.

Review requested by
Authors
Reviewer selected by
Editor, service, or community
Public interaction
No
Inclusion of author response
Yes
Decision
Other scale or rating
Review coverage
Complete paper
Reviewer identity known to
Editor or service, Public
Competing interests
Checked