Default figure
INTRODUCTION You are strongly encouraged to use for the preparation of your camera-ready manuscript together with the corresponding Springer class file llncs.cls. Only if you use of your manuscript. The LaTeX source of this instruction file for LaTeX users may be used as a template. This is located in the “authors” subdirectory in entitled typeinst.tex. There is a separate package for Word users. Kindly send the final and checked source and PDF files of your paper to the Contact Volume Editor. This is usually one of the organizers of the conference. You should make sure that the LaTeX and the PDF files are identical and correct and that only one version of your paper is sent. It is not possible to update files at a later stage. Please note that we do not need the printed paper. We would like to draw your attention to the fact that it is not possible to modify a paper in any way, once it has been published. This applies to both the printed book and the online version of the publication. Every detail, including the order of the names of the authors, should be checked before the paper is sent to the Volume Editors. Checking the PDF File Kindly assure that the Contact Volume Editor is given the name and email address of the contact author for your paper. The Contact Volume Editor uses these details to compile a list for our production department at SPS in India. Once the files have been worked upon, SPS sends a copy of the final pdf of each paper to its contact author. The contact author is asked to check through the final pdf to make sure that no errors have crept in during the transfer or preparation of the files. This should not be seen as an opportunity to update or copyedit the papers, which is not possible due to time constraints. Only errors introduced during the preparation of the files will be corrected. This round of checking takes place about two weeks after the files have been sent to the Editorial by the Contact Volume Editor, i.e., roughly seven weeks before the start of the conference for conference proceedings, or seven weeks before the volume leaves the printer’s, for post-proceedings. If SPS does not receive a reply from a particular contact author, within the timeframe given, then it is presumed that the author has found no errors in the paper. The tight publication schedule of LNCS does not allow SPS to send reminders or search for alternative email addresses on the Internet. In some cases, it is the Contact Volume Editor that checks all the final pdfs. In such cases, the authors are not involved in the checking phase. Additional Information Required by the Volume Editor If you have more than one surname, please make sure that the Volume Editor knows how you are to be listed in the author index. Copyright Forms The copyright form may be downloaded from the “For Authors" (Information for LNCS Authors) section of the LNCS Website: to the Contact Volume Editor, either as a scanned pdf or by fax or by courier. One author may sign on behalf of all of the other authors of a particular paper. Digital signatures are acceptable.

Jace Harker

and 4 more

NEW YORK – Last June, a dedicated global team of Ebola researchers began an ambitious project to track the virus using large-scale genome sequencing. Their research, which was written on the research platform Authorea and published June 18 in the journal Cell , reveals critical information about how the virus traveled and mutated over seven months of the recent Ebola outbreak. Today Authorea is pleased to announce that the working draft, data, workflows, and full edit history of the paper are available to the public for free on Authorea. This is the first time that such complete details have ever been released for a scientific paper. This release provides unprecedented transparency and detail, empowering students and researchers to review every change and edit to every word during the writing of this landmark research paper, using Authorea’s “History” feature. “When we planned this study, our team decided to make our work as open and transparent as possible, and writing the paper on Authorea is part of that,” said co-lead author Daniel Park. “We felt a moral imperative to put everything out there, especially in this kind of emergency situation.” “Authorea was founded to make researchers’ day-to-day tasks easier,” says Authorea co-founder and Harvard Research Associate Alberto Pepe. “We realized we were wasting time emailing around documents and data. So we built a website where everyone could write and edit in the same place.” But Authorea also supports a bigger goal: making science more open. The platform is free to use for open research. “We encourage scientists to publish their entire research process: writing, data, and discussion,” said Dr. Pepe. “The default stance is often to be closed, and we encourage more openness and transparency.” Researchers in life sciences and other fields often withhold their raw data for months before and even after publishing, according to recent surveys. This practice has questionable utility, as it slows the pace of research, makes it less reproducible, and erodes public trust in science. “Open access saves lives,” said Professor Peter Suber from the Harvard Office for Scholarly Communication and the Harvard Open Access Project, which were not involved with the Cell Ebola study. “Research saves lives, and when access is unaffordable or delayed, the access barriers put lives at risk. This is especially true in a crisis like Ebola where time is of the essence.”

Jace Harker

and 3 more

Last June, a dedicated global team of Ebola researchers began an ambitious project to track the virus using large-scale genome sequencing. Their research, published June 18 in _Cell_, reveals critical information about how the virus traveled and spread over seven months of the recent Ebola outbreak. The team, which included researchers from over a dozen institutions, made a conscious decision to pursue Open Science practices for this project. One choice they made was to write their paper on Authorea, a new science editing and publishing website. The full working version of the paper is now available to the public on Authorea. By using the “History” feature, readers can get a behind-the-scenes look at how the research came together, including every edit and change from the writing process. “When we were kicking off the study, we discussed how much we would open up what we’re doing,” said co-lead author Danny Park. “Our team comes out of the Human Genome Project, so culturally we come from the open science ’put everything out there’ background. And especially in this kind of emergency situation there’s a moral imperative” to publish the data openly and quickly, he said. The team chose Authorea in order to make the writing process transparent. Authorea’s History feature allows the public to view every change made during the writing process. Because key technical sentences were revised and words chosen carefully over time, the evolution of the document can be educational, said Dr. Park. Authorea was just one of many tools used by the research team to publish their work as quickly and openly as possible. The team: - Published their raw genome data to the GenBank database and Virological.org online forum as soon as it was collected, so that other research teams could use and discuss the data immediately - Released demographic and clinical metadata on a special website to enable other researchers to spot important trends - Set up a new website to gather and visualize data from multiple research groups - Published a Comment in Nature strongly advocating open sharing of data during this and future outbreaks - Chose Authorea as a platform to write and edit their draft manuscript, allowing readers to view the writing process with full transparency - Published their article as fully Open Access in _Cell_ “One of the most rewarding aspects of working in this outbreak response is the connections we have made with so many extraordinary individuals through open data sharing”, said senior author Pardis Sabeti. The goal of Open Science principles is to produce stronger, more reproducible, transparent scientific results as quickly as possible. It’s a virtuous circle: openness begets collaboration begets more openness. And in a serious outbreak like the recent Ebola epidemic, more open research can quite literally save lives. ABOUT AUTHOREA: Authorea is an online word processor that makes research writing and publishing faster and easier. Created by scientists, for scientists, Authorea encourages and supports Open Science, transparency, and collaboration. With over 41000 users and a weekly growth rate that has doubled in the past nine months, Authorea is currently the fastest-growing science publishing platform in the world. OTHER RESOURCES _AUTHOREA CONTACTS_ - Alberto Pepe, co-founder and CEO, Authorea: alberto@authorea.com, +1 (310) 600-3929 - Jace Harker, Growth and Community: jace@authorea.com, +1 585-737-6459 - Tanya Anderson, Outreach: tanya@authorea.com _KEY AUTHOR CONTACTS_ - Danny Park: dpark@broadinstitute.org
Wren

Matteo Cantiello

and 3 more

The peer review process is a pillar of modern research, verifying and validating the ever-increasing output of academia. While the academic community agrees that some process of review is necessary to ensure the quality of published research, not everybody agrees on the best approach. In particular, doubts have been cast on the current peer review process: most journals select and assign one anonymous referee (few journals assign two or more) who is in charge of reviewing the manuscript and recommending it for publication or rejection. The argument is that the current peer review system is becoming inadequate. Here’s an incomplete list of issues: - Research is increasingly collaborative, complex, and specialized. Thus, it is less likely that one or a few referees can have the necessary expertise (and time) to properly handle many modern articles. Simply put, THE AVERAGE NUMBER OF AUTHORS PER PAPER HAS BEEN STEADILY INCREASING IN THE LAST FEW DECADES, WHILE THE NUMBER OF REFEREES PER PAPER HAS NOT. - “Publication pressure” means there is a growing number of papers to referee. This need can not be easily matched since scholars, who need to constantly publish and engage in the “funding race”, HAVE LESS TIME TO BE DEDICATED TO COMMUNITY SERVICE (in a “single referee” system the review process is very time consuming). - Given the anonymous nature of peer reviewing manuscripts, RESEARCHERS WHO VOLUNTEER THEIR VALUABLE TIME AND KNOWLEDGE DON’T GET RECOGNITION for contributing. - Cases of peer-review scams, mostly from predatory open access publishers, have grown in number over recent years. A number of journals, exploiting the publication pressure climate, accept and publish articles with LITTLE OR NO PEER REVIEW. - Similarly, there are reports of fraud in which authors review their own or close friends’ manuscripts to give favorable reviews .