An analysis of published journals for papers posted on bioR<sub>X</sub>iv

Tsunoda, Hiroyuki; Sun, Yuan; Nakamura, Masaki; Liu, Xiaomin; Amano, Kou

doi:10.1002/pra2.175

Cited by 12 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Larivière et al (2014) found that 64% of articles published on arXiv were finally issued in a journal list in Web of Science. In Tsunoda et al (2019) this amounts to about 40%. To summarize, our results are similar.…”

Section: Basic Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 92%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Where have all the working papers gone? Evidence from four major economics working paper series

Baumann¹,

Wohlrabe

2020

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Working papers or preprints have become an important part in the scientific landscape. Such papers present research before (potentially) being published in refereed journals. But is every working paper finally published in a journal? We answer this question for four major working paper series in economics. Based on linked data in RePEc and a random sample we provide an estimate of 66.5% of more than 28,000 investigated working papers that are published in a journal. About 8% are released as a book chapter. For the remaining 25.5% we find no evidence for what happened to the article.

show abstract

Section: Basic Estimatesmentioning

confidence: 92%

“…Abdill and Blekhman (2019) did the same for 37,600 articles from bio R Xiv. Tsunoda et al (2019) also analyzed from bio R Xiv, using a smaller sample of 17,800 articles. Finally, Anderson (2020) shows that over a period of five years 30% of preprints uploaded on bio R Xiv never get published in a journal.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Where have all the working papers gone? Evidence from four major economics working paper series

Baumann¹,

Wohlrabe

2020

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Certain preprint categories are read and shared by both scientists and non-scientists alike [12]. About two-thirds to three-quarters of preprints are eventually published [13,14] and life science articles that have a corresponding preprint version are cited and discussed more often than articles without them [15,16,17]. Preprints take an average of 160 days to be published in the peer reviewed literature [18], and those with multiple versions take longer to publish[18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Linguistic Analysis of the bioRxiv Preprint Landscape

Nicholson¹,

Rubinetti²,

Hu³

et al. 2021

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Preprints allow researchers to make their findings available to the scientific community before they have undergone peer review. Studies on preprints within bioRxiv have been largely focused on article metadata and how often these preprints are downloaded, cited, published, and discussed online. A missing element that has yet to be examined is the language contained within the bioRxiv preprint repository. We sought to compare and contrast linguistic features within bioRxiv preprints to published biomedical text as a whole as this is an excellent opportunity to examine how peer review changes these documents. The most prevalent features that changed appear to be associated with typesetting and mentions of supplementary sections or additional files. In addition to text comparison, we created document embeddings derived from a preprint-trained word2vec model. We found that these embeddings are able to parse out different scientific approaches and concepts, link unannotated preprint-peer reviewed article pairs, and identify journals that publish linguistically similar papers to a given preprint. We also used these embeddings to examine factors associated with the time elapsed between the posting of a first preprint and the appearance of a peer reviewed publication. We found that preprints with more versions posted and more textual changes took longer to publish. Lastly, we constructed a web application (https://greenelab.github.io/preprint-similarity-search/) that allows users to identify which journals and articles that are most linguistically similar to a bioRxiv or medRxiv preprint as well as observe where the preprint would be positioned within a published article landscape.

show abstract

“…The volume of papers posted on bioRχiv has increased rapidly every month (43,812 during November 2013–February 2019). Recently, the server has accepted more than 2,000 papers monthly, 17,818 of which were published, mostly within 6 months (Tsunoda, Sun, Nishizawa, Liu, & Amano, 2019).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The influence of bioRχiv on PLOS ONE's peer‐review and acceptance time

Tsunoda

Sun

Nakamura

et al. 2020

Proc Assoc Inf Sci Technol

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study examines the relation between acceptance times in preprint publishing and journal publishing. Specifically, we investigated the association between a paper's posting time to bioRχiv, a preprints server, and journal articles' peer‐review and acceptance time for PLOS ONE. So far, of the total papers published in 1,626 academic journals, the average publication rate of those posted in bioRχiv is 40.67%. Meanwhile, PLOS ONE was the journal that published more papers. Analysis of peer‐review and acceptance time of papers published in journals via preprints showed the time these papers are posted in relation to these intervals. The median of the peer‐review and acceptance time of the journal submission date that was later than the date of first posting to bioRχiv was 110.00 days, and in the reverse case, it was 139.50 days. Posting to the preprint server before journal submission shows a better order than vice versa. This study provides us a good understanding of the peer‐review process. It also gives us good insights into optimizing this process, which would then facilitate paper publication and knowledge dissemination.

show abstract

An analysis of published journals for papers posted on bioR_Xiv

Cited by 12 publications

References 6 publications

Where have all the working papers gone? Evidence from four major economics working paper series

Where have all the working papers gone? Evidence from four major economics working paper series

Linguistic Analysis of the bioRxiv Preprint Landscape

The influence of bioRχiv on PLOS ONE's peer‐review and acceptance time

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

An analysis of published journals for papers posted on bioRXiv

Cited by 12 publications

References 6 publications

Where have all the working papers gone? Evidence from four major economics working paper series

Where have all the working papers gone? Evidence from four major economics working paper series

Linguistic Analysis of the bioRxiv Preprint Landscape

The influence of bioRχiv on PLOS ONE's peer‐review and acceptance time

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About

An analysis of published journals for papers posted on bioR_Xiv