The rise of preprints in chemistry

Coudert, François‐Xavier

doi:10.1038/s41557-020-0477-5

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Researchers with an open science mindset will also consider ‘pre-printing’ their unpublished manuscripts prior to publication, a well-established practice in some areas of science, and on the rise in many others (see Coudert, 2020 ). Pre-printing entails authors depositing reports of the findings of research projects on an online server designated for that purpose on their completion and prior to formal publication.…”

Section: Features Of the Open Science ‘Mindset’mentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing an open science ‘mindset’

Hagger

2021

Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Identification of widespread biases present in reported research findings in many scientific disciplines, including psychology, such as failures to replicate and the likely extensive application of questionable research practices, has raised serious concerns over the reliability and trustworthiness of scientific research. This has led to the development of, and advocacy for, ‘open science’ practices, including data, materials, analysis, and output sharing, pre-registration of study predictions and analysis plans, and increased access to published research findings. Implementation of such practices has been enthusiastic in some quarters, but literacy in, and adoption of, these practices has lagged behind among many researchers in the scientific community. Advances In the current article I propose that researchers adopt an open science ‘mindset’, a comprehensive approach to open science predicated on researchers’ operating under the basic assumption that, wherever possible, open science practices will be a central component of all steps of their research projects. The primary, defining feature of the mindset is a commitment to open science principles in all research projects from inception to dissemination. Other features of the mindset include the assumption that all components of research projects (e.g. pre-registered hypotheses, protocols, materials, analysis plans, data, and output) will be accessible broadly; pro-active selection of open fora to disseminate research components and findings; open and transparent dissemination of reports of the research findings in advance of, and after, formal publication; and active promotion of open science practices through education, modeling, and advocacy. Conclusion The open science mindset is a ‘farm to fork’ approach to open science aimed at promoting comprehensive quality in application of open science, and widening participation in open science practices so that they become the norm in research in health psychology and behavioral medicine going forward.

show abstract

Section: Features Of the Open Science ‘Mindset’mentioning

confidence: 99%

Developing an open science ‘mindset’

Hagger

2021

Health Psychology and Behavioral Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Authors rarely have such leverage. In some published forms, like preprints, where follow-up versions allow for corrections of the paper (Coudert, 2020 ; Kaiser, 2017 ), it would be possible to exercise this right by requesting authors not to cite their work or by putting forward arguments to editors to exclude select citations. In exceptional cases, at least in theory, an academic that does not wish their intellect to be misinterpreted or represented in a low-quality or predatory journal or a fake paper (Bohannon, 2015 ) could approach the editors during post-publication and request that their citation be removed, or replaced.…”

Section: The Right Not To Be Cited?mentioning

confidence: 99%

The right to refuse unwanted citations: rethinking the culture of science around the citation

Silva¹,

Vuong

2021

Scientometrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Logically, and by most common standards, academics would be pleased to be cited, considering it a form of recognition of their intellect. In return, especially those with high citation counts, such as Clarivate Analytics’ Highly Cited Researchers, can benefit through peer recognition, rewards, funding, securing a better position, or expanding a collaborative network. Despite known and untold benefits, one issue has not been discussed: the right to refuse to be cited or the right to refuse a citation. Academics might not want to be cited by papers published in truly predatory journals, papers with false authors, or sting papers with falsified elements that employ underhanded ethical tactics. Currently, academics generally have the freedom to select where they publish their findings and choose studies they cite, so it is highly probable that requests to remove citations or refuse citations might never become formal publishing policy. Nonetheless, this academic discussion is worth having as valid and invalid literature increasingly gets mixed through citations, and as the grey zone between predatory/non-predatory and scholarly/unscholarly becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish.

show abstract

“…Bedford, 2020 ). Competing to share research findings in a timely manner, some journals implemented accelerated peer review processes, both prior to and during the COVID-19 pandemic ( Callaway, 2020 ; Coudert, 2020 ; De Floriani, 2020 ). These structures and practices have contributed to an increasingly complex scientific information ecosystem.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Open science, COVID-19, and the news: Exploring controversies in the circulation of early SARS-CoV-2 genomic epidemiology research

Molldrem

Hussain

Smith

2021

Global Public Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Some early English language news coverage of COVID-19 epidemiology focused on studies that examined how SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19) was evolving at the genetic level. The use of phylogenetic methods to analyse pathogen genetic sequence data to understand disease dynamics is called 'molecular' or 'genomic' epidemiology. Many research groups in this subfield utilise open science practices, which can involve the circulation of early unreviewed findings on publicly-accessible venues online. From March to May 2020, media outlets covered early SARS-CoV-2 genomic studies that claimed to have discovered types of SARS-CoV-2 that had mutated to be more transmissible. We use methods from Science and Technology Studies (STS) to examine three cumulative cases in which unripe facts about SARS-CoV-2 genomics moved out of scientific publics and into mainstream news. The three cases are: (1) 'A More "Aggressive" Strain of SARS-CoV-2?', (2) 'Eight SARS-CoV-2 Strains?', and (3) 'A "More Contagious," "Mutant" Strain?' In each case, findings were called into question and reporters' framing was overly sensational. We interpret the COVID-19 pandemic as a 'stress-test' for open science practices, and argue that it is important for stakeholders to understand changes in scientific publication and dissemination processes in the wake of the pandemic.

show abstract

The rise of preprints in chemistry

Cited by 11 publications

References 17 publications

Developing an open science ‘mindset’

Developing an open science ‘mindset’

The right to refuse unwanted citations: rethinking the culture of science around the citation

Open science, COVID-19, and the news: Exploring controversies in the circulation of early SARS-CoV-2 genomic epidemiology research

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About