Do you have a preprint in progress and want constructive feedback? Submit it for discussion at the ASAPbio-PREreview live-streamed preprint journal clubs – ASAPbio

“Preprints provide a great avenue for researchers to get feedback on their work from the community. This type of community feedback is particularly valuable when gathered on early preprints, that is, on manuscripts that are still work-in-progress, prior to their submission for journal publication. The feedback from the community can allow authors to get a sense of what parts of the work are particularly appreciated by their peers, what can be improved in the write up of the research, and give them ideas for further experiments or lines of research.

To highlight the value of sharing early work via preprints and the benefits of community feedback, ASAPbio and PREreview are partnering to host live-streamed preprint journal clubs for early preprints (the event will follow the format of PREreview Live-streamed preprint journal clubs as described here). During the journal club, participants will discuss the preprint with a focus on highlighting the positive aspects of the work and on offering constructive suggestions for next steps for the study. After the collaborative discussion, we will post a summary of the discussion on PREreview’s platform for preprint reviews. The review will therefore receive a digital object identifier (DOI), and participants will have the option to be recognized for their contribution.

We invite authors of early preprints who would like feedback on their work to submit their work for discussion at one of these journal clubs….”

Survey points to key two challenges with preprint feedback: recognition and trust – ASAPbio

“In preparation for the Recognizing Preprint Peer Review workshop, ASAPbio integrated input from two working groups to prepare a survey for researchers, funders, and journal editors and publishing organization employees. The survey sought to gather views and experience with preprint feedback and review from a broad range of stakeholders, to help inform the conversations at the workshop.

The survey garnered 230 responses, and we share here summaries of the two largest categories of respondents: 161 responses from researchers and 51 responses from journal editors and publishing organization employees. You can view the results on Google Sheets and on Zenodo….

Most respondents had received no feedback on preprints, which, for the purpose of this survey, we defined as any public commentary on preprints. Of those who had received some feedback, only a small fraction indicated that the feedback came in the form of detailed reviews. 

With few researchers having received feedback, perhaps it’s unsurprising that a significant number of them expressed concerns with the prospect: the most significant concerns related to hesitancy about the quality or fairness of the feedback and about the commenter’s motivations for providing it.

However, more than half of respondents said they’d be likely or very likely to request feedback on their preprints if journals incorporated preprint reviews into editorial decisions or treated them like reviews transferred from another journal. Other potential incentives, such as funders recognizing preprint peer reviews in various ways, were not far behind….”

‘Open science and preprints’ lecture at the University of Belgrade – Raising awareness about preprints in the Serbian community – ASAPbio

“On 2 December 2022, the Faculty of Chemistry of the University of Belgrade (Serbia), hosted a lecture concerning open science and preprints. The event was supported by ASAPbio and aimed to raise awareness around preprints and their place within open science among the local Serbian researchers, and to encourage this community to post preprints for their research works….”

Ten Recommended Practices for Managing Preprints in Generalist and Institutional Repositories – COAR

“It is clear that institutional and generalist repositories have an important role to play in supporting preprint sharing worldwide.

To address these gaps, a COAR-ASAPbio Working Group on Preprint in Repositories identified ten recommended practices for managing preprints across three areas: linking, discovery, and editorial processes. While we acknowledge that many of these practices are not currently in use by institutional and generalist repositories, we hope that these recommendations will encourage repositories around the world that collect preprints to begin to apply them locally….”

Sciety welcomes ASAPbio–SciELO Preprints crowd review for the evaluation of Brazilian-Portuguese preprints | For the press | eLife

Sciety is pleased to announce the first non-English group to bring open review and curation to the platform: ASAPbio–SciELO Preprints crowd review. Based in Brazil, the group reviews preprints relating to infectious disease research that are posted on the SciELO Preprints server in Brazilian Portuguese.

August ASAPbio Community Call – Promoting equity in visibility, curation and evaluation of preprints

“Preprints are freely accessible, but there are persistent disparities in the visibility and attention paid to preprints according to the authors’ institutions, geographical area, language and other backgrounds. In this interactive session, we will discuss how to promote equity in making preprints visible.”

FAST principles to foster a positive preprint feedback culture – ASAPbio

“In order to foster broad and inclusive participation in this conversation on preprints, we need a positive culture around preprint feedback, but what does this look like in practice? This is the question that the ASAPbio preprint review cultural norms Working Group is tackling. The group is discussing what behaviors reflect the preprint feedback culture we would like to see, with the goal of developing a set of norms for all participants in preprint feedback. 

The Working Group is pleased to share an initial draft of principles for creating, responding to, and interpreting preprint feedback, clustered around four broad themes: Focused, Appropriate, Specific, Transparent – FAST. The table below provides elaboration for each of the FAST themes, and we invite feedback from the community on these principles….”

Supporting public preprint review through collaborative reviews – an update on ASAPbio’s crowd preprint review – ASAPbio

“Through our crowd preprint review activities we seek to draw on the collective input of a group of commenters who each can comment on the preprint according to their level of expertise and interest. We are midway through our activities for 2022 and we wanted to share an update on our progress.

What have we accomplished so far?

We had a great response from the community with over 120 crowd reviewers signed up so far, with strong representation of early career researchers. We have three groups which complete reviews of preprints in each of the disciplines below:

Cell biology – a crowd of 70 members reviews preprints posted on bioRxiv 
Biochemistry – a crowd of 35 researchers reviews preprints from bioRxiv 
Infectious diseases preprints in Portuguese – a crowd of 30 researchers provide reviews in Portuguese for preprints posted in SciELO Preprints

For each of the groups, a group of ASAPbio Fellows and partners from SciELO Preprints are involved in selecting preprints to review and summarizing the comments received. They also provide regular feedback on aspects of the process that can be adjusted or improved. 

We circulate a new preprint to each group every week and invite comments via a Google document. We have seen a great level of engagement from reviewers, and are particularly pleased to see the interactions among reviewers in the collaborative documents, where they provide comments and feedback to each other, not only about the preprints but also about queries that may arise during their review….”

Making sense of preprints by adding context – The Publish Your Reviews initiative | Impact of Social Sciences

“Improving scientific publishing is often framed as an issue of openness and speed and less often as one of context. In this post, Ludo Waltman and Jessica Polka make the case for a more contextualised approach to open access publishing and preprinting, and introduce the Publish Your Reviews initiative. Launched today by ASAPbio, the initiative allows reviewers to provide richer contextual information to preprints by publishing peer reviews and linking them to the preprint versions of the articles under review….”

#PublishYourReviews: Open Conversation on Preprints and Reviewing – ScienceOpen Blog

“#PublishYourReviews is a campaign to encourage more transparency, enrich the scientific conversation with diverse expertise, and catalyze a culture of open commenting on preprints. ScienceOpen is proud to be a supporter of this initiative spearheaded by ASAPbio, a scientist-driven nonprofit working to promote innovation and transparency in the life sciences.

Publish Your Reviews encourages all reviewers to post their comments alongside the preprint versions of articles.

With over 2 million indexed preprints from a wide range of repositories and a powerful infrastructure for open peer review, ScienceOpen is ideally situated to support the Publish Your Reviews initiative. We look forward to facilitating the conversation on preprints and open peer reviewing and publishing your reviews!

The initiative invites all the researchers interested in promoting more open dialog around preprints to sign the following pledge:

“When a journal invites me to review an article that is available as a preprint, I will publish my review alongside the preprint. I will make sure that the published version of my review does not include the journal name, a recommendation for publication, or other confidential information.”


Introducing PReF: Preprint Review Features – ASAPbio

“Preprint reviews hold the potential to build trust in preprints and drive innovation in peer review. However, the variety of platforms available to contribute comments and reviews on preprints means that it can be difficult for readers to gain a clear picture of the process that led to the reviews linked to a particular preprint. 

To address this, ASAPbio organized a working group to develop a set of features that could describe preprint review processes in a way that is simple to implement. We are proud to share Preprint Review Features (PReF) in an OSF Preprint. PReF consists of 8 key-value pairs, describing the key elements of preprint review. The white paper includes detailed definitions for each feature, an implementation guide, and an overview of how the characteristics of active preprint review projects map to PReF. We also developed a set of graphic icons (below) that we encourage the preprint review community to reuse alongside PReF. 

While the Peer Review Terminology developed by the STM working group and the Open Peer Review taxonomy provided useful background for our discussions, they were designed with a focus on journal-based peer review, and do not capture all the possible elements that can be part of preprint review. We acknowledge that there are nuances and different views as to what constitutes “peer review,” “feedback,” and “commenting;” rather than create strict definitions, our aim was to parse out important aspects of the process involved in any form of review on preprints, and to do so in a format that could be used by platforms that host, coordinate, or aggregate such activities. Therefore, we are glad to see that PReF is already implemented on ReimagineReview and on review aggregators like Early Evidence Base and Sciety. We hope that our efforts in the development and adoption of PReF will promote better visibility and discoverability of preprint review….”

ASAPbio Crowd preprint review 2022 sign-up form

“Following our trial last year, ASAPbio is running further preprint crowd review activities in 2022. Our goal is to provide an engaging environment for researchers to participate in providing feedback on preprints and support public reviews for preprints.

In 2022, we will be coordinating public reviews for different disciplines. We are pleased to say that we are collaborating with SciELO Preprints to also coordinate the review of preprints in Portuguese. This year we will cover the following disciplines:

– Cell biology preprints from bioRxiv (English)
– Biochemistry preprints from bioRxiv (English)
– Infectious diseases preprints from SciELO Preprints (Portuguese)

**This form is for reviewers who will participate in the review of preprints from bioRXiv, to sign up for the review of SciELO Preprints in Portuguese, please complete this form:

We invite researchers in the disciplines above to join our crowd preprint review activities, and particularly encourage early career researchers to participate. The activities will run for three months, from mid May to August 2022….”

Join the ASAPbio Board of Directors – call for applications – ASAPbio

“ASAPbio is seeking several new members for our Board of Directors to support our mission to drive positive change in science communication and to broaden our geographic representation.

We are looking for new Board members who can help us deliver on our strategic goals and complement the perspectives of existing Board members. We particularly seek individuals with expertise in the areas below:

Driving and managing culture change
Meta-research, ideally with a strong understanding of the current landscape and trends around preprints and open peer review
Data and information analysis in the context of science communication

We want to increase the geographical representation within the Board, and we would particularly welcome applications from Asia, Europe, Latin America, and Oceania.”