The prehistory of biology preprints: A forgotten experiment from the 1960s

Cobb, Matthew

doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2003995

Cited by 62 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 43 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…BioRxiv (pronounced “Bio Archive”) is a preprint server, a repository to which researchers can post their papers directly to bypass the months-long turnaround time of the publishing process and share their findings with the community more quickly (Berg et al 2016). Though the idea of preprints is far from new (Cobb 2017), researchers have become vocally frustrated about the lengthy process of distributing research through the conventional pipelines (Powell 2016), and numerous public laments have been published decrying increasingly impractical demands of journals and reviewers (e.g. Raff et al 2008; Snyder 2013).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints

Abdill

Blekhman

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

19Researchers in the life sciences are posting their work to preprint servers at an 20 unprecedented and increasing rate, sharing papers online before (or instead of) 21 publication in peer-reviewed journals. Though the popularity and practical benefits of 22 preprints are driving policy changes at journals and funding organizations, there is little 23 bibliometric data available to measure trends in their usage. Here, we collected and 24 analyzed data on all 37,648 preprints that were uploaded to bioRxiv.org, the largest 25 biology-focused preprint server, in its first five years. We find that preprints on bioRxiv 26 are being read more than ever before (1.1 million downloads in October 2018 alone) 27 and that the rate of preprints being posted has increased to a recent high of more than 28 2,100 per month. We also find that two-thirds of bioRxiv preprints posted in 2016 or 29 earlier were later published in peer-reviewed journals, and that the majority of published 30 preprints appeared in a journal less than six months after being posted. We evaluate 31 which journals have published the most preprints, and find that preprints with more 32 downloads are likely to be published in journals with a higher impact factor. Lastly, we 33 developed Rxivist.org, a website for downloading and interacting programmatically with 34 indexed metadata on bioRxiv preprints. 35 37 full-length research articles. PLOS Biology published 19. Genetics published 23. Cell 38 published 35. BioRxiv had posted more articles than all four-combined-by the end of 39 September 3 (Table S1). 40 3 BioRxiv (pronounced "Bio Archive") is a preprint server, a repository to which 41 researchers can post their papers directly to bypass the months-long turnaround time of 42 the publishing process and share their findings with the community more quickly (Berg 43 et al. 2016). Though the idea of preprints is far from new (Cobb 2017), researchers 44 have become vocally frustrated about the lengthy process of distributing research 45 through the conventional pipelines (Powell 2016), and numerous public laments have 46 been published decrying increasingly impractical demands of journals and reviewers 47 53 Against this backdrop, preprints have become a steady source of the most recent 54 research in biology, providing a valuable way to learn about exciting, relevant and high-55impact findings-for free-months or years before that research will appear anywhere 56 else, if at all (Kaiser 2017). It's a practice long familiar to physicists, who began 57 submitting preprints to arXiv, one of the earliest preprint servers, in 1991 (Verma 2017). 58

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints

Abdill

Blekhman

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Going forward, on the landscape of preprints and metrics, perhaps overlay systems could be implemented, based on repositories using new metrics as overlay journals emerge. Preprint repositories have emerged as movement and they are implemented in different ways; approached in heterogeneous forms and seeing them along with conventional journals may be a possibility or whether they will change the scholarly communication landscape fundamentally, as hubs of early-research output have important caveats for open science [6,37]. However, the trade-offs, such as the questions of conflict of interests, risks, and research ethics with which preprints are published, need to be addressed for the public in the public domain and in understanding science [87,88].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preprints in Scholarly Communication: Re-Imagining Metrics and Infrastructures

Balaji

Dhanamjaya

2019

Publications

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Digital scholarship and electronic publishing within scholarly communities change when metrics and open infrastructures take center stage for measuring research impact. In scholarly communication, the growth of preprint repositories as a new model of scholarly publishing over the last three decades has been one of the major developments. As it unfolds, the landscape of scholarly communication is transitioning—with much being privatized as it is made open—and turning towards alternative metrics, such as social media attention, author-level, and article-level metrics. Moreover, the granularity of evaluating research impact through new metrics and social media changes the objective standards of evaluating research performance. Using preprint repositories as a case study, this article situates them in a scholarly web, examining their salient features, benefits, and futures. Moves towards scholarly web development and publishing on the semantic and social web with open infrastructures, citations, and alternative metrics—how preprints advance building the web as data—is discussed. We determine that this will viably demonstrate new metrics and, by enhancing research publishing tools in the scholarly commons, facilitate various communities of practice. However, for preprint repositories to be sustainable, scholarly communities and funding agencies should support continued investment in open knowledge, alternative metrics development, and open infrastructures in scholarly publishing.

show abstract

“…The concept of preprints is not new to the field. In the 1960s, the NIH began circulating papers in Information Exchange Groups (IEGs) to facilitate the exchange of ideas among experts in select subspecialties . At the time, the relationship between preprint and canonical publication was not a positive one; in fact, some commercial journals viewed IEGs as competitors.…”

Section: Prosmentioning

confidence: 99%