The use of preprints (a research paper made publicly available before publication in a peer reviewed journal) is on the rise in the biomedical field. In an article in The Scholarly Kitchen, David Crotty asks whether preprints should be cited in the same way as articles published in a peer reviewed journal. While discussing the pros and cons of using preprints, the author recognises the need for clear citation guidelines. He concludes that publishers will need to play an active role in establishing a broadly accepted standard to “preserve quality, transparency and trustworthiness of scholarly literature”. Continue reading “Do preprints have a place in today’s reference lists?”
By incorporating post-publication validation badges into preprints, bioRxiv begins to transform itself from a preprint server into a publishing platform.
The post Badges? We Don’t Need No Stinking Preprint Badges! appeared first on The Scholarly Kitchen.
Editor’s Note: This press release also appears on the Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Newsstand.
Public Library of Science (PLOS) and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) announce an agreement that enables the automatic posting of research articles submitted to PLOS journals on bioRxiv, CSHL’s preprint server for the life sciences. This collaboration between bioRxiv and PLOS empowers authors to share their work on a trusted platform before peer review, accelerating the pace of biomedical research.
By Bernd Pulverer, EMBO As preprint posting takes hold in the biosciences community, we need both quality control and curation to ensure we share results in a reproducible and discoverable manner.
The 2018 European Meeting of the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals (ISMPP) was held in London on 23–24 January and attracted nearly 300 delegates; the highest number of attendees to date. The meeting’s theme was ‘Advancing Medical Publications in a Complex Evidence Ecosystem’ and the agenda centred around data transparency, patient centricity and the future of medical publishing. Delegates were treated to two keynote addresses, lively panel discussions, interactive roundtables and parallel sessions, and also had the chance to present their own research in a poster session. Continue reading “Meeting report: summary of day 1 of the 2018 European ISMPP Meeting”
By Samantha Hindle and Daniela Saderi, PREreview The image above (DOI) is CC-BY 4.0 licensed and is available for download on Figshare.
Preprints are freely available scientific manuscripts that have not yet undergone editorial peer review. They provide data and knowledge that is current, accessible by all, and at a stage where community peer review can contribute to scientific progression. Rather than restricting feedback to two or three journal-selected reviewers, preprints can be read and evaluated by a diverse population of interested scientists at different career stages. Theoretically, the advantages of opening up scientific evaluation to a larger pool of scientists should be straightforward: the more reviewers, the fewer mistakes – or to quote Linus’ Law, “Given enough eyeballs, all bugs are shallow.” Practically speaking, this can be more complicated as scientists have limited free time, are not well-incentivized for their reviewing activities, and some may argue that “too many cooks spoil the broth.”
By Rebecca Lawrence & Vitek Tracz, F1000, firstname.lastname@example.org We have been successfully running a service (which we call platforms, to distinguish from traditional research journals), for over 5 years at F1000 that is essentially a preprint coupled with formal, invited (i.e. not crowd-sourced) post publication peer review. We have consequently amassed significant experience of running […]
By Ron Vale, Tony Hyman, and Jessica Polka Summary We propose the creation of a scientist-driven, journal-agnostic peer review service that produces an “Evaluated Preprint” and facilitates subsequent publication in a journal. Introduction Scientists have a love-hate relationship with peer review. Sadly, this relationship has been drifting towards the latter over time. Much of the […]
In preparation for our meeting on Transparency, Recognition, and Innovation in Peer Review in the Life Sciences on February 7-9 at HHMI Headquarters, we’ve collected some recent (and not-so-recent) literature on journal peer review. A full annotated bibliography can be found at the bottom of this post, and we invite any additions via comments. To […]
“…who will benefit from the release of such data earlier? Neither the general public nor the practicing clinician will benefit, as they may be confused by potentially conflicting data and recommendations, if unreviewed manuscripts are equally as discoverable as peer-reviewed papers. Thus, I would propose that manuscript authors are the only ones who may benefit from the process. They can promote their “publication” on social media and within their departments, but these manuscripts should not maintain the same level of credibility as peer-reviewed papers. Maybe, the medical community could all benefit from a little patience.”
“Ultimately the key question is what is the problem preprints are aiming to address? Traditional peer review may well be less expedient than posting a preprint. But the latter could lead to wide dissemination of inaccurate and potentially harmful clinical and public health information and to researchers pursuing hypotheses that are subsequently found to lack proper grounding, thereby erasing any gains made from the rapid dissemination of results. Accelerating the pace of medical research is a worthwhile goal. The larger question is how to achieve this efficiently, and with the necessary safeguards in place. At the very least, the debate over medical preprints is one worth having.”
In biology, a debate has erupted over using preprints to share your research article early online, before undergoing a formal peer review at a journal. The preprint is posted on a self-archiving platform such as BioRxiv, which is free to everyone. As a form of early publishing, the preprint pioneer ArXiv has been in use…
Science communication is very important. As researchers increasingly forge global collaborations in biological research, the scientific community will need more collaborative tools. To meet that need, Authorea developed a collaborative document editor service. It helps collaborators edit shared documents. Furthermore, it facilitates the process of archiving preprints or publication-ready manuscripts (not peer reviewed) and submitting … Read more
Academic publishing has long relied upon a simple approach. Write the manuscript, ask a few colleagues for comments on it, and then submit it to a journal for peer review. Hopefully, the manuscript is accepted for publication, usually after one or more revisions. This entire process often takes at least several months. However, adherence to … Read more