FAIR Connect

FAIR Connect is an Open Access publishing platform for the development and dissemination of good practices for professional FAIR-Data stewardship.

In due course the platform will go live. Keep informed through our newsletter!

Open Access

FAIR Connect is an open access journal.

There are currently no Article Processing Charges (APCs) to publish in this journal.
 

FAIR Connect aims to encourage discourse among professional data stewards. Although the review process around FSRs and Thumbnail Articles in FAIR Connect should ensure complete and high quality content, it should also be as rapid as possible. As such, reviewers of FAIR Connect content are requested to submit their assessment within 3 working days.

After automatic plagiarism screening through iThenticate, all submitted manuscripts are subject to initial appraisal by the Editors-in-Chief, and, if found suitable for further consideration, to rigorous peer-review by independent, anonymous expert referees. Reasons to reject a paper in the pre-screening process could for example be because the work does not fall within the aims and scope, the writing is of poor quality, the instructions to authors were not followed or the presented work is not novel.

Community Approval Process:
Given the practical nature of FAIR Connect as a professional forum and exchange platform, the review of FAIR Connect articles differs from classical scholarly journals by emphasizing “Community Approval” rather than “Peer Review”. Although FAIR Connect Thumbnail Articles will indeed be reviewed by peers in the data stewardship community, the aim of the review is to improve the exposition of the FSR rather than to provide judgment on its applicability as a resource.  The Community Approval Process follows: 1) After the authors submit the Thumbnail article to the Editorial Manager, two reviewers from the FAIR Connect Community are chosen by the Senior Editors based on their skills profile to do the article review within a period of three days;  2) During this period any other Community member can comment on the article; 3) After receiving the assessment the corresponding author interacts with the co-authors and improves the document according to the suggestions of the reviewers also within a time frame of three working days; 4) If the article was accepted with major revisions, then the editors will quality-check if the improvement suffices and if considered necessary contact the reviewers for getting their approval; 5) After the Community approval is communicated to the corresponding author, final adjustments are done by the editors in close cooperation with the corresponding author to publish the article; 6) The DOI is assigned to the paper and a nanopublication is minted for the article by the corresponding author; 7) In total no longer than 14 working days should be needed for the whole process.  
 

Review criteria for Community Approval of FSR Thumbnail Articles:

• Is the length of the Thumbnail Article compliant within the limits of 500-3000 words?
• Does the work correspond to the FSR article type? Articles that go beyond the description of a FSR and focus on, for example, the application in a use case should be published elsewhere. In FAIR Connect Thumbnail Articles, applications can be mentioned but should not be the main subject of the article. Keep the focus on the FSR itself. 
• Does the FSR support significantly in the FAIRification of data or metadata?
• Has the FSR not yet been covered by another Thumbnail Article?
• Are the text, figures, and tables of the work accessible, pleasant to read, clearly structured, and free of major errors in grammar or style?

Review criteria for Community Approval of Commentary Thumbnail Articles:

• Is the length of the Thumbnail Article compliant within the limits of 500-3000 words?
• Does the work correspond to topics, broadly conceived, but still directly relevant to professional data stewardship? Is there an emphasis on FAIR? Keep the focus on topics relevant to the community of practicing data stewards. 
• Are the text, figures, and tables of the work accessible, pleasant to read, clearly structured, and free of major errors in grammar or style? 
• Is there a logic that leads to a significant or novel point of view?
• Is there sufficient focus to be coherent, but also enough vision to challenge the professional data steward with new ideas?  

Overall recommendation:
Reviews should conclude with one of three overall recommendations: 

• Accept in its present form or with the noted minor revisions. 
• Accept with noted major revisions. A revised manuscript will be subject to a second round of review by the same person, also within the 3-day turnaround timeframe.
• Reject, for reasons that most likely are due to the poor fit with the FAIR Connect Aims and Scope or Code of Conduct.