A guide to preprinting for early-career researchers

Ettinger, Cassandra L.; Sadanandappa, Madhumala K.; Görgülü, Kıvanç; Coghlan, Karen; Hallenbeck, Kenneth K.; Puebla, Iratxe

doi:10.1242/bio.059310

Cited by 9 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…As of August 2022, the Reimagine Review platform listed 36 platforms and initiatives for preprint evaluation (ReimagineReview, no date). These platforms differ in who initiates the review, how reviewers are selected and whether their identities are openly available (Ettinger et al, 2022;ReimagineReview, no date). Some of these platforms also provide detailed guidance on how to give feedback on preprints (e.g., Hindle and Saderi, 2017;PREreview Resource Center, 2020), which may lead the content of comments in these platforms to be different from those on preprint platforms.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping the content of comments on bioRxiv and medRxiv preprints

Carneiro

Costa

Neves

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction: Preprints have been increasingly used in biomedical sciences, providing the opportunity for research to be publicly assessed before journal publication. With the increase in attention over preprints during the COVID-19 pandemic, we decided to assess the content of comments left on preprint platforms. Methods: Preprints posted on bioRxiv and medRxiv in 2020 were accessed through each platform's API, and a random sample of preprints that had received between 1 and 20 comments was analyzed. Comments were evaluated in triplicate by independent evaluators using an instrument that assessed their features and general content. Results: 7.3% of preprints received at least 1 comment during a mean follow-up of 7.5 months. Analyzed comments had a median size of 43 words. Criticisms, corrections or suggestions were the most prevalent type of content, followed by compliments or positive appraisals and questions. Most critical comments regarded interpretation, data collection and methodological design, while compliments were usually about relevance and implications. Conclusions: Only a small percentage of preprints posted in 2020 in bioRxiv and medRxiv received comments in these platforms. When present, however, these comments address content that is similar to that analyzed by traditional peer review. A more precise taxonomy of peer review functions would be desirable to describe whether post-publication peer review fulfills these roles.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping the content of comments on bioRxiv and medRxiv preprints

Carneiro

Costa

Neves

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…(48,54,59) Preprints are therefore said to have varying impact for researchers, grantees or applicants. (2,18,36,54,59,60,62,80,81) Several funding organisations (e.g., Wellcome Trust, NIH) now endorse the use of preprint servers for grant applications. (82,83) Including preprints in the grant application process provides reviewers the opportunity to access and gain early insight to the research and data in its full format (i.e., not restricted by word limitation in the funding application).…”

Section: Insert Box 3 Herementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Funding for preprint servers is from non-profit agencies and concerns have been raised regarding sustainability and archiving costs (36) Preprints can further inform grant review and academic advancement (attractive for researchers) (2,18,36,54,59,60,62,80,81) 9…”

Section: Publishersmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Providing early career researchers/scientists opportunities to showcase their work early to the public, offering positive effect on job opportunities or funding (5,13,39,50,59,60,62,81,97,99,102)…”

Section: Availability Of Data and Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Some funders allow inclusion of preprints in grant applications helping applicants and authors to provide evidence of research productivity (including communication and dissemination and for ECRs) (2,18,25,36,50,60,76,80,81) 9 30…”

Section: Availability Of Data and Materialsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: a scoping review

Blatch-Jones¹,

Saucedo²,

Giddins³

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Preprints are open and accessible scientific manuscript or report that has not been submitted to a peer reviewed journal. The value and importance of preprints has grown since its contribution during the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders and publishers are establishing their position on the use of preprints, in grant applications and publishing models. However, the evidence supporting the use and acceptability of preprints varies across funders, publishers, and researchers. The purpose of this scoping review was to explore the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research lifecycle.Methods: A scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017-2022) to capture changes influenced by COVID-19 (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature, and two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science (24 August 2022). Results: 379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publications, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility, and validation). For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities).Conclusions: Preprints provide opportunities for rapid dissemination but there is a need for clear policies and guidance from journals, publishers, and funders. Cautionary measures are needed to maintain the quality and value of preprints, paying particular attention to how findings are translated to the public. More research is needed to address some of the uncertainties addressed in this review.

show abstract

Preparing and Structuring a Manuscript for Publication

Forero

2023

The Quintessence of Basic and Clinical Research and Scientific Publishing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A guide to preprinting for early-career researchers

Cited by 9 publications

References 31 publications

Mapping the content of comments on bioRxiv and medRxiv preprints

Mapping the content of comments on bioRxiv and medRxiv preprints

The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: a scoping review

Preparing and Structuring a Manuscript for Publication

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About