From amazing work to I beg to differ - analysis of bioRxiv preprints that received one public comment till September 2019

Malički, Mario; Costello, Joseph A.; Alperin, Juan Pablo; Maggio, Lauren A.

doi:10.1101/2020.10.14.340083

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In addition to Twitter, the comments section of preprint servers can be used as a public forum for discussion and review. However, an analysis of all bioRxiv comments from September 2019 found a very limited number of peer-review style comments [ 43 ]. Despite increased publicity for established preprint review services (such as PREreview [ 44 , 45 ]), there has been a limited use of these platforms [ 46 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The world continues to face a life-threatening viral pandemic. The virus underlying the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused over 98 million confirmed cases and 2.2 million deaths since January 2020. Although the most recent respiratory viral pandemic swept the globe only a decade ago, the way science operates and responds to current events has experienced a cultural shift in the interim. The scientific community has responded rapidly to the COVID-19 pandemic, releasing over 125,000 COVID-19–related scientific articles within 10 months of the first confirmed case, of which more than 30,000 were hosted by preprint servers. We focused our analysis on bioRxiv and medRxiv, 2 growing preprint servers for biomedical research, investigating the attributes of COVID-19 preprints, their access and usage rates, as well as characteristics of their propagation on online platforms. Our data provide evidence for increased scientific and public engagement with preprints related to COVID-19 (COVID-19 preprints are accessed more, cited more, and shared more on various online platforms than non-COVID-19 preprints), as well as changes in the use of preprints by journalists and policymakers. We also find evidence for changes in preprinting and publishing behaviour: COVID-19 preprints are shorter and reviewed faster. Our results highlight the unprecedented role of preprints and preprint servers in the dissemination of COVID-19 science and the impact of the pandemic on the scientific communication landscape.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition to Twitter, the comments section of preprint servers can be used as a public forum for discussion and review. However, an analysis of all bioRxiv comments to September 2019 found a very limited number of peer-review style comments [43]. Despite increased publicity for established preprint-review services (such as PREreview [44,45]), there has been limited use of these platforms [46].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preprinting the COVID-19 pandemic

Fraser

Brierley

Dey

et al. 2020

Preprint

107

109

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

25The world continues to face an ongoing viral pandemic that presents a serious threat to human 26 health. The virus underlying the COVID-19 disease, SARS-CoV-2, has caused over 3.2 million confirmed 27 cases and 220,000 deaths between January and April 2020. Although the last pandemic of respiratory 28 disease of viral origin swept the globe only a decade ago, the way science operates and responds to 29 current events has experienced a paradigm shift in the interim. The scientific community has 30 responded rapidly to the COVID-19 pandemic, releasing over 16,000 COVID-19 related scientific 31 articles within 4 months of the first confirmed case, of which at least 6,000 were hosted by preprint 32 servers. We focused our analysis on bioRxiv and medRxiv, two growing preprint servers for biomedical 33 research, investigating the attributes of COVID-19 preprints, their access and usage rates, 34 characteristics of their sharing on online platforms, and the relationship between preprints and their 35 published articles. Our data provides evidence for increased scientific and public engagement (COVID-36 19 preprints are accessed and distributed at least 15 times more than non-COVID-19 preprints) and 37 changes in journalistic practice with reference to preprints. We also find evidence for changes in 38 preprinting and publishing behaviour: COVID-19 preprints are shorter, with fewer panels and tables, 39 and reviewed faster. Our results highlight the unprecedented role of preprints and preprint servers in 40 the dissemination of COVID-19 science, and the likely long-term impact of the pandemic on the 41 scientific publishing landscape. 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54The first quarter of 2020 has been defined by the COVID-19 outbreak, which has escalated to 55 pandemic status, and caused over 3.2 million cases and 220,000 deaths within 4 months of the first 56 reported case [1,2]. The causative pathogen was rapidly identified as a novel virus within the family 57Coronaviridae and was named severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (or 'SARS-CoV-2') [3]. 58 Although multiple coronaviruses are ubiquitous among humans and cause only mild disease, 59 epidemics of newly emerging coronaviruses were previously observed in SARS coronavirus in 2002 [4] 60 and Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) coronavirus in 2012 [5]. The unprecedented extent and 61 rate of spread of COVID-19 has created a critical global health emergency and academic communities 62 have raced to actively respond through research developments. 63 Research developments have traditionally been communicated via published journal articles or 64 conference presentations. Traditional scientific publishing involves the submission of manuscripts to 65 an individual journal, which then organises peer review. Authors often conduct additional experiments 66or analyses to address the reviewers' concerns in one or more revisions. Even after this lengthy 67 process is concluded, almost half of submissions are rejected and require re-submission to a different ...

show abstract

“…Our results are lower than in a recent survey of authors from Latin America (SCIELO) where preliminary results of a survey indicate there were around 40% of authors who posted a preprint and they mostly feel posting a preprint is something beneficial (29). In a recent analysis of comments of 1,983 bioRxiv preprints (before the COVID pandemic) Malicki et al (30) found that 12% (N=168) of comments were full peer review reports. and hypothesised beneficial effects of the comments for the authors and the scientific community.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attitudes and Practices of Open Data, Preprinting, and Peer-review - a Cross Sectional Study on Croatian Scientists

Baždarić

Vrkić

Arh

et al. 2020

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attitudes towards open peer review, open data and use of preprints influence scientists’ engagement with those practices. Yet there is a relatively small number of validated questionnaires that measure these attitudes. The goal of our study was to construct and validate such a questionnaire. Using a sample of Croatian scientists (N=541), from a wide range of disciplines, we developed a questionnaire titled Attitudes towards Open data sharing, preprinting, and peer-review (ATOPP). The questionnaire has 21 item with a four-factor structure (attitudes towards: open data, preprint servers, open peer-review and open peer-review in small scientific communities). Based on the questionnaire, the attitudes of Croatian scientists towards these topics were generally neutral, with a median of 3.3 out of 5 of the total attitude score. Croatian scientist attitudes were lowest for open peer-review in small scientific communities (Md 2.0) and highest for open data (Md 3.9).

show abstract

From amazing work to I beg to differ - analysis of bioRxiv preprints that received one public comment till September 2019

Cited by 8 publications

References 22 publications

The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape

The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape

Preprinting the COVID-19 pandemic

Attitudes and Practices of Open Data, Preprinting, and Peer-review - a Cross Sectional Study on Croatian Scientists

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About