Preprinting is positively associated with early career researcher status in ecology and evolution

Wolf, Jesse F; MacKay, Layla; Haworth, Sarah E; Cossette, Marie‐Laurence; Dedato, Morgan N.; Young, Kiana B; Elliott, Colin; Oomen, Rebekah A.

doi:10.1002/ece3.8106

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Preprints have introduced a new level of speed and transparency to the dissemination of life science research. They have removed barriers to research communication and have particularly benefited early-career researchers, who use them to share their work on their own terms, to show productivity, and to receive valuable feedback from a vast community of peers [ 12 , 13 ]. However, the rapid growth of preprint servers has also introduced some challenges and complexity into the environment of scholarly publication [ 14 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Downstream retraction of preprinted research in the life and medical sciences

Avissar-Whiting

2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retractions have been on the rise in the life and clinical sciences in the last decade, likely due to both broader accessibility of published scientific research and increased vigilance on the part of publishers. In this same period, there has been a greater than ten-fold increase in the posting of preprints by researchers in these fields. While this development has significantly accelerated the rate of research dissemination and has benefited early-career researchers eager to show productivity, it has also introduced challenges with respect to provenance tracking, version linking, and, ultimately, back-propagation of events such as corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions that occur on the journal-published version. The aim of this study was to understand the extent of this problem among preprint servers that routinely link their preprints to the corollary versions published in journals. To present a snapshot of the current state of downstream retractions of articles preprinted in three large preprint servers (Research Square, bioRxiv, and medRxiv), the DOIs of the journal-published versions linked to preprints were matched to entries in the Retraction Watch database. A total of 30 retractions were identified, representing only 0.01% of all content posted on these servers. Of these, 11 retractions were clearly noted by the preprint servers; however, the existence of a preprint was only acknowledged by the retracting journal in one case. The time from publication to retraction averaged 278 days, notably lower than the average for articles overall (839 days). In 70% of cases, retractions downstream of preprints were due–at least in part–to ethical or procedural misconduct. In 63% of cases, the nature of the retraction suggested that the conclusions were no longer reliable. Over time, the lack of propagation of critical information across the publication life cycle will pose a threat to the scholarly record and to scientific integrity. It is incumbent on preprint servers, publishers, and the systems that connect them to address these issues before their scale becomes untenable.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Downstream retraction of preprinted research in the life and medical sciences

Avissar-Whiting

2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Preprints are especially beneficial to early career researchers by immediately building their publication record regardless of the unpredictable latency of the peer review process (Ettinger et al, 2022;Sarabipour et al, 2019). This may explain the higher uptake of preprinting by these researchers (Wolf et al, 2021). Only around 4% of research articles are currently preprinted, however (Xie et al, 2021).…”

Section: Submissionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The case for open research in entomology: Reducing harm, refining reproducibility and advancing insect science

Cuff,

Barrett,

Gray

et al. 2024

Agri and Forest Entomology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Open research is an increasingly developed and crucial framework for the advancement of science and has seen successful adoption across a broad range of disciplines. Entomology has, however, been slow to adopt these practices compared to many adjacent fields despite ethical and practical imperatives to do so. The grand challenges facing entomology in the 21st century require the synthesis of evidence at global scales, necessitating open sharing of data and research at a pace and scale incompatible with the slow adoption of open research practices. Open science also plays a vital role in fostering trust in research and maximizing use of research outputs, which is ethically crucial for reducing harms to insects. We outline these imperatives and how open research practices can enhance entomological research across a range of contexts. We also highlight the holistic nature of open science across the full research lifecycle through several specific examples of open research practices, which can be adopted easily by individual entomologists. We do, however, argue that the responsibility of promoting, integrating and encouraging open research is most crucially held by publishers, including scholarly societies, which have leveraged widespread adoption in adjacent fields. Entomology must advance quickly to become a leading discipline in the open research transition.

show abstract

“…Though ECRs are often interested in open science and preprints ( Sarabipour et al, 2019 ; Wolf et al, 2021 ), many find themselves in situations where the decision on how to publish their research does not lie solely with them. Whether to preprint a manuscript involves a discussion among co-authors, and the ECR's advisor, the group leader, or the corresponding author will often make the final decision.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A guide to preprinting for early-career researchers

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The use of preprints, research manuscripts shared publicly before completing the traditional peer-review process, is becoming a more common practice among life science researchers. Early-career researchers (ECRs) benefit from posting preprints as they are shareable, citable, and prove productivity. However, preprinting a manuscript involves a discussion among all co-authors, and ECRs are often not the decision-makers. Therefore, ECRs may find themselves in situations where they are interested in depositing a preprint but are unsure how to approach their co-authors or advisor about preprinting. Leveraging our own experiences as ECRs, and feedback from the research community, we have constructed a guide for ECRs who are considering preprinting to enable them to take ownership over the process and to raise awareness about preprinting options. We hope that this guide helps ECRs to initiate conversations about preprinting with co-authors and encourage them to preprint their future research.

show abstract

Preprinting is positively associated with early career researcher status in ecology and evolution

Cited by 7 publications

References 51 publications

Downstream retraction of preprinted research in the life and medical sciences

Downstream retraction of preprinted research in the life and medical sciences

The case for open research in entomology: Reducing harm, refining reproducibility and advancing insect science

A guide to preprinting for early-career researchers

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About