Technical and social issues influencing the adoption of preprints in the life sciences

Penfold, Naomi

doi:10.7287/peerj.preprints.27954v1

Cited by 5 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 11 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We found that the number of arXiv preprint authorships increased between 2019 and 2020 for all authorship positions and genders (Figure 1). Increases in preprint submissions between 2019 and 2020 are perhaps not surprising, as scientific output and the popularity of preprint servers have both been increasing in recent years (Penfold and Polka 2020), and the time-sensitive nature of COVID-19 research may also have encouraged greater use of preprint servers among scientists (Fraser et al 2020). On the other hand, we might have expected decreased productivity overall during the pandemic because of illness and bereavement and also laboratory closures affecting experimental scientists.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Pandemic Penalty: The Gendered Effects of COVID-19 on Scientific Productivity

King

Frederickson

2021

Socius

132

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Academia serves as a valuable case for studying the effects of social forces on workplace productivity, using a concrete measure of output: scholarly papers. Many academics, especially women, have experienced unprecedented challenges to scholarly productivity during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. The authors analyze the gender composition of more than 450,000 authorships in the arXiv and bioRxiv scholarly preprint repositories from before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. This analysis reveals that the underrepresentation of women scientists in the last authorship position necessary for retention and promotion in the sciences is growing more inequitable. The authors find differences between the arXiv and bioRxiv repositories in how gender affects first, middle, and sole authorship submission rates before and during the pandemic. A review of existing research and theory outlines potential mechanisms underlying this widening gender gap in productivity during COVID-19. The authors aggregate recommendations for institutional change that could ameliorate challenges to women’s productivity during the pandemic and beyond.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Pandemic Penalty: The Gendered Effects of COVID-19 on Scientific Productivity

King

Frederickson

2021

Socius

132

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Some journals also search preprint servers to solicit submissions ( Barsh et al, 2016 ; Vence, 2017 ), and there are various initiatives to encourage and facilitate the peer review of preprints, such as In Review ( https://www.researchsquare.com/publishers/in-review ), Review Commons ( https://www.reviewcommons.org ), and Preprint Review ( eLife, 2020 ). However, relatively little is known about who is benefiting from the growth of preprints or how this new approach to publishing is affecting different populations of researchers ( Penfold and Polka, 2020 ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

International authorship and collaboration across bioRxiv preprints

Abdill

Adamowicz

Blekhman

2020

eLife

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Preprints are becoming well established in the life sciences, but relatively little is known about the demographics of the researchers who post preprints and those who do not, or about the collaborations between preprint authors. Here, based on an analysis of 67,885 preprints posted on bioRxiv, we find that some countries, notably the United States and the United Kingdom, are overrepresented on bioRxiv relative to their overall scientific output, while other countries (including China, Russia, and Turkey) show lower levels of bioRxiv adoption. We also describe a set of ‘contributor countries’ (including Uganda, Croatia and Thailand): researchers from these countries appear almost exclusively as non-senior authors on international collaborations. Lastly, we find multiple journals that publish a disproportionate number of preprints from some countries, a dynamic that almost always benefits manuscripts from the US.

show abstract

“…This can be seen in the solutions scholars and journalists have proposed to mitigate the potential risks associated with preprint media coverage, which include consulting unaffiliated experts 31 , assessing study quality with a critical eye 32 , and "emphasizing the preliminary nature of conclusions" 33 . Rigorous fact checking, working closely with study authors, and using independent sources to validate research findings have also been identified as important protective measures [34][35][36] , as has building awareness among journalists and their audiences about the nature of preprints 3 . Although many of these recommended practices, such as fact checking or consulting unaffiliated experts, are simply "basic science journalism principles" 37 , others, such as labeling papers as unreviewed or helping audiences understand the process of scholarly publishing, mark a departure from traditional journalistic practice.…”

Section: Research Questions and Objectivesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among these changes has been a surge, both within and beyond the scholarly community, in the use of preprints , research papers posted online before formal peer review 1 . Preprints are useful for rapid information sharing in outbreak contexts 2 , as they allow researchers, by circumventing the often lengthy peer-review process, to share findings and build on one another’s work more quickly than would otherwise be possible 3 . Yet, their use in the health and biomedical sciences has historically lagged behind uptake in other fields 4 .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Science in motion: A qualitative analysis of journalists’ use and perception of preprints

Fleerackers

Moorhead

Maggio

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This qualitative study explores how and why journalists use preprints - unreviewed research papers - in their reporting. Through thematic analysis of interviews conducted with 19 health and science journalists in the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, it applies a theoretical framework that conceptualizes COVID-19 preprint research as a form of post-normal science, characterized by high scientific uncertainty and societal relevance, urgent need for political decision-making, and value-related policy considerations. Findings suggest that journalists approach the decision to cover preprints as a careful calculation, in which the potential public benefits and the ease of access preprints provided were weighed against risks of spreading misinformation. Journalists described viewing unreviewed studies with extra skepticism and relied on diverse strategies to find, vet, and report on them. Some of these strategies represent standard science journalism, while others, such as labeling unreviewed studies as preprints, mark a departure from the norm. However, journalists also reported barriers to covering preprints, as many felt they lacked the expertise or the time required to fully understand or vet the research. The findings suggest that coverage of preprints is likely to continue post-pandemic, with important implications for scientists, journalists, and the publics who read their work.

show abstract

Technical and social issues influencing the adoption of preprints in the life sciences

Cited by 5 publications

References 11 publications

The Pandemic Penalty: The Gendered Effects of COVID-19 on Scientific Productivity

The Pandemic Penalty: The Gendered Effects of COVID-19 on Scientific Productivity

International authorship and collaboration across bioRxiv preprints

Science in motion: A qualitative analysis of journalists’ use and perception of preprints

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About