1. There’s still some hurdle before new-eLife will send your paper out for review. This is not necessarily “quality” or “impact” level; they say it will depend on whether they can provide a helpful and effective review.
People had very mixed experiences with old-eLife’s editorial decisions, and some felt it was a bit clubby: papers from some labs sailed through to acceptance while similar work from others got editorially rejected (without review) for seemingly minor reasons. Their policy against requesting new experiments could certainly be used as a cudgel: an editor can just say you’re not convinced by a control and the paper’s DOA.
Thus, they are both uniquely positioned to make sweeping changes and have people doubt them.
2. The reviews use a controlled vocabulary, so I think you’d say eLife (excellent approach, major impact) or whatever the words are.
People had very mixed experiences with old-eLife’s editorial decisions, and some felt it was a bit clubby: papers from some labs sailed through to acceptance while similar work from others got editorially rejected (without review) for seemingly minor reasons. Their policy against requesting new experiments could certainly be used as a cudgel: an editor can just say you’re not convinced by a control and the paper’s DOA.
Thus, they are both uniquely positioned to make sweeping changes and have people doubt them.
2. The reviews use a controlled vocabulary, so I think you’d say eLife (excellent approach, major impact) or whatever the words are.