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

Abstract

Preprints are gaining visibility in many fields. Thanks to the exponential growth in submissions to bioRxiv, an online server for preprints in biology, versions of manuscripts prior to the completion of journal-organized peer review are poised to become a standard component of the publishing experience in the life sciences. Here, we provide an overview of current challenges facing preprints, both technical and social, and a vision for their future development. Unbundling the functions of publication Science progresses only at the rate at which we can share information with one another. But as any author of a journal article can attest, formal mechanisms of scholarly communication do not always work efficiently and can be subject to biases [1-3]. Peer review takes time: not merely for the reviewer to compile a thorough assessment but also for the editor to find reviewers. In the swiftest case, a manuscript is accepted at the first journal, and the process to eventual publication may take approximately four months [4,5]. However, given that many researchers continue to be evaluated based on the reputation of the journals in which their work is published, authors are incentivised to "aim high" when they select a journal, and it can take several rounds of review (at a single or multiple journals) before the work is approved for publication. It is commonplace for a manuscript to have been submitted to at least two journals on its way to publication, and as a result, the overall peer review process can take years [6]. The sooner a piece of work can be read, evaluated, and built upon, the faster science moves. And by including a greater diversity of thought in the process of science, higher quality final products emerge. Yet, although our system of publication has superficially transitioned from physical print magazines to online websites, the mechanisms and processes of scientific communication are not much faster or more inclusive than they were in the 19th century. Perhaps the underlying cause for this stasis is the fact that our system of evaluating scientific work-whether for deciding what to read or to whom to award grants and jobs-relies heavily on the reputation of journal titles, and in turn, journal article output is factored into university ranking calculations [7]. Experimenting with new forms of sharing science that are incompatible with publication in traditional venues therefore carries career risks. In addition, many open-science practices (posting lab notebooks, sharing data sets, or conducting replication PLOS GENETICS

Preprinting the COVID-19 pandemic

“…2B). Further studies on understanding the motivations behind posting preprints, for example through quantitative and qualitative author surveys may help funders and other stakeholders that support the usage of preprints to address some of the social barriers for their uptake [30]. bioRxiv and medRxiv included a banner to explain that preprints should not be regarded as conclusive and not reported on in the news media as established information [31].…”

“…This advantage may influence the dynamics of preprint uptake: as researchers in a given field begin to preprint, their colleagues may feel pressure to also preprint in order to avoid being scooped. Further studies on understanding the motivations behind posting preprints, for example through quantitative and qualitative author surveys may help funders and other stakeholders that support the usage of preprints to address some of the social barriers for their uptake [28].…”

The Pandemic Penalty: The gendered effects of COVID-19 on scientific productivity

“…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 & 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 impacting experimental scientists.…”

“…Peer review takes time, so it is still too soon to see the full effect of COVID-19 on the numbers of journal articles published by women versus men academics. However, a growing number of academics make their submitted or in-progress manuscripts available on preprint servers (Penfold & Polka, 2020), making it possible to measure the pandemic's effect on preprint submissions in real time. Preliminary evidence also suggests a growing importance for preprints during the pandemic, as there is a high demand for rapid research to understand COVID-19 (Fraser et al, 2020).…”

Publication practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: Biomedical preprints and peer-reviewed literature

“…The preprint platforms were widely explored as hubs for disseminating scientific findings [6], especially for early-stage researchers [7], which revealed a number of social and technical issues associated with their adoption [8]. The top four concerns with preprint servers included scooping of scientific results [9], poor data quality [10], spread of misinformation [11], and varied and non-transparent deposition policies [6].…”