1
|
Singh Chawla D. COVID's preprint bump set to have lasting effect on research publishing. Nature 2024:10.1038/d41586-024-00401-4. [PMID: 38337051 DOI: 10.1038/d41586-024-00401-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/12/2024]
|
2
|
Avissar-Whiting M, Belliard F, Bertozzi SM, Brand A, Brown K, Clément-Stoneham G, Dawson S, Dey G, Ecer D, Edmunds SC, Farley A, Fischer TD, Franko M, Fraser JS, Funk K, Ganier C, Harrison M, Hatch A, Hazlett H, Hindle S, Hook DW, Hurst P, Kamoun S, Kiley R, Lacy MM, LaFlamme M, Lawrence R, Lemberger T, Leptin M, Lumb E, MacCallum CJ, Marcum CS, Marinello G, Mendonça A, Monaco S, Neves K, Pattinson D, Polka JK, Puebla I, Rittman M, Royle SJ, Saderi D, Sever R, Shearer K, Spiro JE, Stern B, Taraborelli D, Vale R, Vasquez CG, Waltman L, Watt FM, Weinberg ZY, Williams M. Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science. PLoS Biol 2024; 22:e3002502. [PMID: 38421949 PMCID: PMC10903809 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 03/02/2024] Open
Abstract
Peer review is an important part of the scientific process, but traditional peer review at journals is coming under increased scrutiny for its inefficiency and lack of transparency. As preprints become more widely used and accepted, they raise the possibility of rethinking the peer-review process. Preprints are enabling new forms of peer review that have the potential to be more thorough, inclusive, and collegial than traditional journal peer review, and to thus fundamentally shift the culture of peer review toward constructive collaboration. In this Consensus View, we make a call to action to stakeholders in the community to accelerate the growing momentum of preprint sharing and provide recommendations to empower researchers to provide open and constructive peer review for preprints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Michele Avissar-Whiting
- Office of the President, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, Maryland, United States of America
| | - Frédérique Belliard
- TU Delft OPEN Publishing, Delft University of Technology—TU Delft Library, Delft, the Netherlands
| | - Stefano M. Bertozzi
- Department of Public Health, UC Berkeley School of Public Health, Berkeley, California, United States of America
| | - Amy Brand
- The MIT Press, MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, United States of America
| | - Katherine Brown
- Development, The Company of Biologists, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | | | | | - Gautam Dey
- Cell Biology and Biophysics, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany
| | - Daniel Ecer
- Technology, Sciety/eLife, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | | | - Ashley Farley
- Knowledge & Research Services, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, United States of America
| | - Tara D. Fischer
- Biochemistry Section, Surgical Neurology Branch, National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America
| | - Maryrose Franko
- Health Research Alliance, Swanton, Vermont, United States of America
| | - James S. Fraser
- Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, University of California San Francisco & ASAPbio, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| | - Kathryn Funk
- National Center for Biotechnology Information, National Library of Medicine, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America
| | - Clarisse Ganier
- Centre for Gene Therapy and Regenerative Medicine, King’s College London, London, United Kingdom
| | | | - Anna Hatch
- Office of the President, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, Maryland, United States of America
| | - Haley Hazlett
- The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America
| | | | | | - Phil Hurst
- Publishing Section, The Royal Society, London, United Kingdom
| | | | | | - Michael M. Lacy
- The American Society for Cell Biology, Rockville, Maryland, United States of America
| | - Marcel LaFlamme
- Open Research, PLOS, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| | | | | | - Maria Leptin
- President’s Office, European Research Council, Brussels, Belgium
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | - Kleber Neves
- Science Program, Instituto Serrapilheira, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil
| | | | | | | | | | - Stephen J. Royle
- Biomedical Sciences, University of Warwick, Coventry, United Kingdom
| | | | - Richard Sever
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, New York, New York, United States of America
| | - Kathleen Shearer
- COAR (Confederation of Open Access Repositories), Göttingen, Germany
| | - John E. Spiro
- Simons Foundation, New York, New York, United States of America
| | - Bodo Stern
- Office of the President, Howard Hughes Medical Institute, Chevy Chase, Maryland, United States of America
| | - Dario Taraborelli
- Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Redwood City, California, United States of America
| | - Ron Vale
- Janelia Research Campus, HHMI, Ashburn, Virginia, United States of America
| | - Claudia G. Vasquez
- Biochemistry Department, University of Washington, Seattle, United States of America
| | - Ludo Waltman
- Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Leiden, the Netherlands
| | | | - Zara Y. Weinberg
- Biochemistry & Biophysics Department, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Rzayeva N, Henriques SO, Pinfield S, Waltman L. The experiences of COVID-19 preprint authors: a survey of researchers about publishing and receiving feedback on their work during the pandemic. PeerJ 2023; 11:e15864. [PMID: 37637174 PMCID: PMC10452616 DOI: 10.7717/peerj.15864] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/15/2022] [Accepted: 07/17/2023] [Indexed: 08/29/2023] Open
Abstract
The COVID-19 pandemic caused a rise in preprinting, triggered by the need for open and rapid dissemination of research outputs. We surveyed authors of COVID-19 preprints to learn about their experiences with preprinting their work and also with publishing their work in a peer-reviewed journal. Our research had the following objectives: 1. to learn about authors' experiences with preprinting, their motivations, and future intentions; 2. to consider preprints in terms of their effectiveness in enabling authors to receive feedback on their work; 3. to compare the impact of feedback on preprints with the impact of comments of editors and reviewers on papers submitted to journals. In our survey, 78% of the new adopters of preprinting reported the intention to also preprint their future work. The boost in preprinting may therefore have a structural effect that will last after the pandemic, although future developments will also depend on other factors, including the broader growth in the adoption of open science practices. A total of 53% of the respondents reported that they had received feedback on their preprints. However, more than half of the feedback was received through "closed" channels-privately to the authors. This means that preprinting was a useful way to receive feedback on research, but the value of feedback could be increased further by facilitating and promoting "open" channels for preprint feedback. Almost a quarter of the feedback received by respondents consisted of detailed comments, showing the potential of preprint feedback to provide valuable comments on research. Respondents also reported that, compared to preprint feedback, journal peer review was more likely to lead to major changes to their work, suggesting that journal peer review provides significant added value compared to feedback received on preprints.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Narmin Rzayeva
- Research on Research Institute (RoRI), London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
- Information Technologies and Systems Department, Azerbaijan University of Architecture and Construction, Baku, Azerbaijan
| | - Susana Oliveira Henriques
- Research on Research Institute (RoRI), London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
- Central Library, Lisbon University Medical School, Lisbon, Portugal
| | - Stephen Pinfield
- Research on Research Institute (RoRI), London, United Kingdom
- Information School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, United Kingdom
| | - Ludo Waltman
- Research on Research Institute (RoRI), London, United Kingdom
- Centre for Science and Technology Studies (CWTS), Leiden University, Leiden, The Netherlands
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Maggio LA, Fleerackers A. Preprints in Health Professions Education: Raising Awareness and Shifting Culture. ACADEMIC MEDICINE : JOURNAL OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AMERICAN MEDICAL COLLEGES 2023; 98:17-20. [PMID: 36576764 DOI: 10.1097/acm.0000000000005001] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/17/2023]
Abstract
A preprint is a version of a research manuscript posted by its authors to a preprint server before peer review. Preprints are associated with a variety of benefits, including the ability to rapidly communicate research, the opportunity for researchers to receive feedback and raise awareness of their research, and broad and unrestricted access. For early-career researchers, preprints also provide a mechanism for demonstrating research progress and productivity without the lengthy timelines of traditional journal publishing. Despite these benefits, few health professions education (HPE) research articles are deposited as preprints, suggesting that preprinting is not currently integrated into HPE culture. In this article, the authors describe preprints, their benefits and related risks, and the potential barriers that hamper their widespread use within HPE. In particular, the authors propose the barriers of discordant messaging and the lack of formal and informal education on how to deposit, critically appraise, and use preprints. To mitigate these barriers, several recommendations are proposed to facilitate preprints in becoming an accepted and encouraged component of HPE culture, allowing the field to take full advantage of this evolving form of research dissemination.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lauren A Maggio
- L.A. Maggio is professor of medicine and health professions education, Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland; ORCID: http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2997-6133
| | - Alice Fleerackers
- A. Fleerackers is a doctoral candidate of interdisciplinary studies, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada; ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7182-4061
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Leopold SS. Editorial: The Process Is the Outcome-And it All Starts With CORR's Wonderful Peer Reviewers. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2022; 480:2281-2283. [PMID: 36599021 PMCID: PMC10538886 DOI: 10.1097/corr.0000000000002454] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/21/2022] [Accepted: 09/21/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Seth S Leopold
- Editor-in-Chief, Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Park Ridge, IL, USA
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Gehanno JF, Grosjean J, Darmoni SJ, Rollin L. Reliability of citations of medRxiv preprints in articles published on COVID-19 in the world leading medical journals. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0264661. [PMID: 35947594 PMCID: PMC9365132 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0264661] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2022] [Accepted: 07/25/2022] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction Preprints have been widely cited during the COVID-19 pandemics, even in the major medical journals. However, since subsequent publication of preprint is not always mentioned in preprint repositories, some may be inappropriately cited or quoted. Our objectives were to assess the reliability of preprint citations in articles on COVID-19, to the rate of publication of preprints cited in these articles and to compare, if relevant, the content of the preprints to their published version. Methods Articles published on COVID in 2020 in the BMJ, The Lancet, the JAMA and the NEJM were manually screened to identify all articles citing at least one preprint from medRxiv. We searched PubMed, Google and Google Scholar to assess if the preprint had been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and when. Published articles were screened to assess if the title, data or conclusions were identical to the preprint version. Results Among the 205 research articles on COVID published by the four major medical journals in 2020, 60 (29.3%) cited at least one medRxiv preprint. Among the 182 preprints cited, 124 were published in a peer-reviewed journal, with 51 (41.1%) before the citing article was published online and 73 (58.9%) later. There were differences in the title, the data or the conclusion between the preprint cited and the published version for nearly half of them. MedRxiv did not mentioned the publication for 53 (42.7%) of preprints. Conclusions More than a quarter of preprints citations were inappropriate since preprints were in fact already published at the time of publication of the citing article, often with a different content. Authors and editors should check the accuracy of the citations and of the quotations of preprints before publishing manuscripts that cite them.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jean-Francois Gehanno
- Department of Occupational Medicine, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France
- Inserm, Rouen University, Sorbonne University, University of Paris 13, Laboratory of Medical Informatics and Knowledge Engineering in e-Health, LIMICS, Paris, France
- * E-mail:
| | - Julien Grosjean
- Inserm, Rouen University, Sorbonne University, University of Paris 13, Laboratory of Medical Informatics and Knowledge Engineering in e-Health, LIMICS, Paris, France
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen France
| | - Stefan J. Darmoni
- Inserm, Rouen University, Sorbonne University, University of Paris 13, Laboratory of Medical Informatics and Knowledge Engineering in e-Health, LIMICS, Paris, France
- Department of Biomedical Informatics, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen France
| | - Laetitia Rollin
- Department of Occupational Medicine, Rouen University Hospital, Rouen, France
- Inserm, Rouen University, Sorbonne University, University of Paris 13, Laboratory of Medical Informatics and Knowledge Engineering in e-Health, LIMICS, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Ettinger CL, Sadanandappa MK, Görgülü K, Coghlan KL, Hallenbeck KK, Puebla I. A guide to preprinting for early-career researchers. Biol Open 2022; 11:276073. [PMID: 35876380 PMCID: PMC9346271 DOI: 10.1242/bio.059310] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022] Open
Abstract
The use of preprints, research manuscripts shared publicly before completing the traditional peer-review process, is becoming a more common practice among life science researchers. Early-career researchers (ECRs) benefit from posting preprints as they are shareable, citable, and prove productivity. However, preprinting a manuscript involves a discussion among all co-authors, and ECRs are often not the decision-makers. Therefore, ECRs may find themselves in situations where they are interested in depositing a preprint but are unsure how to approach their co-authors or advisor about preprinting. Leveraging our own experiences as ECRs, and feedback from the research community, we have constructed a guide for ECRs who are considering preprinting to enable them to take ownership over the process and to raise awareness about preprinting options. We hope that this guide helps ECRs to initiate conversations about preprinting with co-authors and encourage them to preprint their future research. Summary: Are you an early-career researcher considering preprinting, but unsure how to approach conversations about the possibility? Here, we discuss preprinting and provide tips to enable you to take ownership over the process.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Cassandra L Ettinger
- Department of Microbiology and Plant Pathology, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521, USA
| | - Madhumala K Sadanandappa
- Department of Molecular and Systems Biology, Geisel School of Medicine at Dartmouth, Hanover, NH 03755, USA
| | - Kıvanç Görgülü
- Comprehensive Cancer Center Munich, Klinikum rechts der Isar, Technical University of Munich, 81675, Munich, Germany
| | - Karen L Coghlan
- George C. Gordon Library, Worcester Polytechnic Institute, Worcester, MA 01609, USA
| | | | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Schulz R, Barnett A, Bernard R, Brown NJL, Byrne JA, Eckmann P, Gazda MA, Kilicoglu H, Prager EM, Salholz-Hillel M, Ter Riet G, Vines T, Vorland CJ, Zhuang H, Bandrowski A, Weissgerber TL. Is the future of peer review automated? BMC Res Notes 2022; 15:203. [PMID: 35690782 PMCID: PMC9188010 DOI: 10.1186/s13104-022-06080-6] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/04/2022] [Accepted: 05/18/2022] [Indexed: 12/19/2022] Open
Abstract
The rising rate of preprints and publications, combined with persistent inadequate reporting practices and problems with study design and execution, have strained the traditional peer review system. Automated screening tools could potentially enhance peer review by helping authors, journal editors, and reviewers to identify beneficial practices and common problems in preprints or submitted manuscripts. Tools can screen many papers quickly, and may be particularly helpful in assessing compliance with journal policies and with straightforward items in reporting guidelines. However, existing tools cannot understand or interpret the paper in the context of the scientific literature. Tools cannot yet determine whether the methods used are suitable to answer the research question, or whether the data support the authors' conclusions. Editors and peer reviewers are essential for assessing journal fit and the overall quality of a paper, including the experimental design, the soundness of the study's conclusions, potential impact and innovation. Automated screening tools cannot replace peer review, but may aid authors, reviewers, and editors in improving scientific papers. Strategies for responsible use of automated tools in peer review may include setting performance criteria for tools, transparently reporting tool performance and use, and training users to interpret reports.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Robert Schulz
- BIH QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Adrian Barnett
- Australian Centre for Health Services Innovation and Centre for Healthcare Transformation, School of Public Health & Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
| | - René Bernard
- NeuroCure Cluster of Excellence, Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | | | - Jennifer A Byrne
- Faculty of Medicine and Health, New South Wales Health Pathology, The University of Sydney, New South Wales, Australia
| | - Peter Eckmann
- Department of Neuroscience, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Małgorzata A Gazda
- UMR 3525, Institut Pasteur, Université de Paris, CNRS, INSERM UA12, Comparative Functional Genomics group, Paris, France
| | - Halil Kilicoglu
- School of Information Sciences, University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign, Champaign, IL, USA
| | - Eric M Prager
- Translational Research and Development, Cohen Veterans Bioscience, New York, NY, USA
| | - Maia Salholz-Hillel
- BIH QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany
| | - Gerben Ter Riet
- Faculty of Health, Center of Expertise Urban Vitality, Amsterdam University of Applied Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - Timothy Vines
- DataSeer Research Data Services Ltd, Vancouver, BC, Canada
| | - Colby J Vorland
- Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA
| | - Han Zhuang
- School of Information Studies, Syracuse University, Syracuse, NY, USA
| | - Anita Bandrowski
- Department of Neuroscience, University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Tracey L Weissgerber
- BIH QUEST Center for Responsible Research, Berlin Institute of Health at Charité Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Berlin, Germany.
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Franco Iborra S, Polka J, Puebla I. Promoting constructive feedback on preprints with the FAST principles. eLife 2022; 11:78424. [PMID: 35475731 PMCID: PMC9045814 DOI: 10.7554/elife.78424] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/07/2022] [Accepted: 04/11/2022] [Indexed: 11/16/2022] Open
Abstract
Ensuring that public feedback on preprints is focused, appropriate, specific and transparent (or FAST) will help to develop a thriving culture for reviewing and commenting on preprints.
Collapse
|
10
|
Ortega JL. Classification and analysis of
PubPeer
comments: How a web journal club is used. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol 2021. [DOI: 10.1002/asi.24568] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- José Luis Ortega
- Institute for Advanced Social Studies (IESA‐CSIC) Córdoba Spain
- Joint Research Unit Knowledge Transfer and Innovation (UCO‐CSIC) Córdoba Spain
| |
Collapse
|