What are preprints? [Originally published in DADOS’ blog in May/2021] | SciELO in Perspective

“In 2020, DADOS began accepting the submission of manuscripts from preprint servers. However, there are still many concerns from the academic community, especially in the Social Sciences, about what preprints are and what changes they bring to the traditional framework of scientific assessment and publication. Our goal here is to answer these questions briefly, in addition to explaining in a simple way how to submit a preprint to DADOS. To this end, we have prepared a schematic of how manuscripts are evaluated in the traditional double-blind review system and how it has been modified in the preprint model. Next, we have a video and a podcast episode (both available in Portuguese only) about how DADOS will incorporate preprints, followed by a text summarizing this material….”

eLife extends support for Coko’s work on open-source publishing solutions | For the press | eLife

eLife is pleased to announce today its ongoing support for Coko to develop open-source software solutions for publishing, including Kotahi – a new journal platform that can also help facilitate the publication and review of preprints.

An easy access dashboard now provides links to scientific discussion and evaluation of bioRxiv preprints.

“Part of our mission at bioRxiv is to alert readers to reviews and discussion of preprints and support the different ways readers provide feedback to authors on their work. These include tweets, comments on preprints and community- or journal-organized peer reviews. bioRxiv improves discoverability of such efforts by linking to peer reviews, community discussions and mentions of the preprint in social and traditional media. By aggregating this information in a new dashboard, we are now making these even easier for readers to find and access.

A series of new icons now appears in the dashboard launch bar, above each Abstract, representing different sources of preprint discussion or evaluation; the numbers of each evaluation or interaction are shown, and clicking on one of the icons opens a dashboard with details of the entries in that section….”

Analysis of single comments left for bioRxiv preprints till September 2019 – Biochemia Medica

Abstract:  Introduction

While early commenting on studies is seen as one of the advantages of preprints, the type of such comments, and the people who post them, have not been systematically explored.

Materials and methods

We analysed comments posted between 21 May 2015 and 9 September 2019 for 1983 bioRxiv preprints that received only one comment on the bioRxiv website. The comment types were classified by three coders independently, with all differences resolved by consensus.

Results

Our analysis showed that 69% of comments were posted by non-authors (N = 1366), and 31% by the preprints’ authors themselves (N = 617). Twelve percent of non-author comments (N = 168) were full review reports traditionally found during journal review, while the rest most commonly contained praises (N = 577, 42%), suggestions (N = 399, 29%), or criticisms (N = 226, 17%). Authors’ comments most commonly contained publication status updates (N = 354, 57%), additional study information (N = 158, 26%), or solicited feedback for the preprints (N = 65, 11%).

Conclusions

Our results indicate that comments posted for bioRxiv preprints may have potential benefits for both the public and the scholarly community. Further research is needed to measure the direct impact of these comments on comments made by journal peer reviewers, subsequent preprint versions or journal publications.

Post-publication peer review: another sort of quality control of the scientific record in biomedicine | Gaceta Médica de México

Abstract:  Traditional peer review is undergoing increasing questioning, given the increase in scientific fraud detected and the replication crisis biomedical research is currently going through. Researchers, academic institutions, and research funding agencies actively promote scientific record analysis, and multiple tools have been developed to achieve this. Different biomedical journals were founded with post-publication peer review as a feature, and there are several digital platforms that make this process possible. In addition, an increasing number biomedical journals allow commenting on articles published on their websites, which is also possible in preprint repositories. Moreover, publishing houses and researchers are largely using social networks for the dissemination and discussion of articles, which sometimes culminates in refutations and retractions.

 

Peer Review And Preprint Servers: An Introduction

“This session will provide a general over view of the peer review process and the use of preprint servers.

Dr Katie Ridd will explain some of the different models of peer review, and will discuss how early careers researchers can get involved. The session will cover some best practice for researchers new to reviewing manuscripts and will also provide advice how to manage the peer review of your own papers. Katie will cover what an editor typically looks for in a peer review report and also discuss how journal editors evaluate the comments that they receive and how these are used to formulate a final decision. Following discussion Katie will be available for a Q&A session….”

F1000 working on ‘digital twin’ platform launches | Research Information

“F1000 is collaborating with two Chinese customers to develop open research publishing platforms dedicated to the research and application of collaborative robots and ‘digital twin’ technologies. Both will be the world’s first open publishing platforms in their fields and will launch for submission in July 2021. 

The platforms will utilise F1000’s open research publishing model, enabling all research outputs to be published open access, as well as combining the benefits of pre-printing (providing rapid publication with no editorial bias) with mechanisms to assure quality and transparency (invited and open peer review, archiving and indexing). They also offer researchers an open and transparent peer review process and have a mandatory FAIR data policy to provide full and easy access to the source data underlying the results….”

F1000 working on ‘digital twin’ platform launches | Research Information

“F1000 is collaborating with two Chinese customers to develop open research publishing platforms dedicated to the research and application of collaborative robots and ‘digital twin’ technologies. Both will be the world’s first open publishing platforms in their fields and will launch for submission in July 2021. 

The platforms will utilise F1000’s open research publishing model, enabling all research outputs to be published open access, as well as combining the benefits of pre-printing (providing rapid publication with no editorial bias) with mechanisms to assure quality and transparency (invited and open peer review, archiving and indexing). They also offer researchers an open and transparent peer review process and have a mandatory FAIR data policy to provide full and easy access to the source data underlying the results….”

ACRL’s Publications in Librarianship Monograph Series Launches Open Peer Review for Intersections of Open Educational Resources and Information Literacy – ACRL Insider

“ACRL’s Publications in Librarianship (PIL) series—a peer-reviewed collection of books that examine emerging theories and research—is launching its third open peer review, for Intersections of Open Educational Resources and Information Literacy, edited by Elizabeth Dill and Mary Ann Cullen….”

ACRL’s Publications in Librarianship Monograph Series Launches Open Peer Review for Intersections of Open Educational Resources and Information Literacy – ACRL Insider

“ACRL’s Publications in Librarianship (PIL) series—a peer-reviewed collection of books that examine emerging theories and research—is launching its third open peer review, for Intersections of Open Educational Resources and Information Literacy, edited by Elizabeth Dill and Mary Ann Cullen….”

Royal Society Open Science welcomes PCI Registered Reports | Royal Society

“Royal Society Open Science has been in the vanguard of efforts to expand the availability of Registered Reports as a journal article type. The journal began offering Registered Reports in 2015 (not long after the journal itself launched in 2014), and in 2018 we launched a modified version of the format to more easily accommodate Replication studies, as part of our Accountable Replication Policy. Now, in April 2021, we take our next step in promoting Registered Reports (RRs) by welcoming the submission of Stage 2 Registered Reports that have been reviewed and recommended by the Peer Community In (PCI) Registered Reports platform.

PCI Registered Reports is a non-profit, non-commercial platform that coordinates the peer review of Registered Report preprints. Once the submissions are accepted following peer review (or in PCI terms “recommended”), the completed Stage 2 Registered Report is posted at the preprint server where the preprint is hosted, and the peer reviews and recommendation of the preprint are posted at the PCI RR website. Following the completion of peer review, authors have the option to publish their articles in a growing list of “PCI RR-friendly” journals that have committed to accepting PCI Registered Report recommendations without further peer review. …”