Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints

Abdill, Richard J.; Blekhman, Ran

doi:10.7554/elife.45133

Cited by 171 publications

(204 citation statements)

References 49 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

182

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…BioRxiv, a preprint server in biology, provides an excellent example. As described in Abdill and Blekhman (2019), deposits into bioRxiv are growing rapidly. If growth continues at the current rate, biorxiv could prove to be a major disruptor: it is growing extremely quickly, and the vast majority of the deposits which are published have zero OA lag (and so are OA at the time of highest demand).…”

Section: Extending the Model: Growth Of Biorxivmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Future of OA: A large-scale analysis projecting Open Access publication and readership

Piwowar

Priem

Orr

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Extending the Model: Growth Of Biorxivmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Future of OA: A large-scale analysis projecting Open Access publication and readership

Piwowar

Priem

Orr

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The disadvantage is that our results only apply to journals that have published at least 50 articles that have a preprint on bioRxiv. In fact, our preprint counts may be an underestimate, since some preprints on bioRxiv have been published as peer-reviewed articles, but not yet detected as such by bioRxiv's internal system (Abdill and Blekhman, 2019) . Furthermore, the associations we observe may not apply to preprints on other repositories such as arXiv Quantitative Biology and PeerJ Preprints.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Furthermore, some journals explicitly or implicitly refuse to accept manuscripts released as preprints (Reichmann et al, 2019) , perhaps partly for fear of publishing articles not seen as novel or newsworthy. Currently, the number of preprints released each month in the life sciences is only a fraction of the number of peer-reviewed articles published (Abdill and Blekhman, 2019) .…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the peer-reviewed article

Hughey

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Preprints in biology are gaining popularity, but release of a preprint still precedes only a fraction of peer-reviewed publications. We examined whether having a preprint on bioRxiv was associated with metrics of the corresponding peer-reviewed article. We assembled a dataset of 74,239 articles, 5,405 of which had a preprint, published in 39 journals. Based on log-linear regression and random-effects meta-analysis, articles with a preprint had a 51% higher Altmetric Attention Score and 37% more citations compared to articles without one. These associations were independent of several other article-and author-level variables (e.g., scientific subfield and last author publication age) and unrelated to journal-level variables such as access model and Impact Factor. This observational study can help researchers and publishers make informed decisions about how to incorporate preprints into their work.Although the advantages of preprints have been well articulated (Bourne et al., 2017;Sarabipour et al., 2019) , quantitative evidence for these advantages remains relatively sparse.

show abstract

“…We encourage our authors to post to a preprint server such as bioRxiv (http://www.biorxiv.com) when we send a paper for review; however, we notice an increasing number of papers that are submitted directly from bioRxiv using B2J, or already posted on a preprint at the time of submission. As mentioned in a recent publication [5], Genome Biology is among the journals that publish a large number of papers that were previously posted on bioRxiv, and we would be happy to see this trend continue.…”

Section: Growing Influence Of Preprintsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Open data in a deeply connected world

Cheifet

2020

Genome Biol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We are currently living and working in an era where huge amounts of data are generated every day. Questions obviously arise over where to put this data, who owns it, and who can use it. It is clear that giving open access to research can be beneficial for the community. For example, ever since the emergence of COVID-19, a contagious respiratory disease that is induced by infection of SARS-CoV-2, there have been over 1515 peer-reviewed research articles and commentaries published in 2 months. Publishers are working day and night to expedite the publication of such knowledge and to make the articles freely open to the public. In addition to free access, Springer Nature has collated all research on this topic into an easily accessible resource online: https://www.springernature.com/gp/researchers/campaigns/coronavirus.It is clear that the rapid advancement of knowledge on this specific disease and specific coronavirus was fueled by the open attitude and willingness of researchers to share raw sequencing data of the virus and their research findings, and this has encouraged other researchers to share and build on the data. According to the GISAID website (https://www.gisaid.org/epiflu-applications/next-hcov-19-app/), there are 1249 SARS-CoV-2 sequences available and the numbers are growing rapidly along with the emerging pandemic. Researchers are also sharing their research on preprint platforms such as medRxiv and bioRxiv to more quickly disseminate their results to the public. The speed at which this new open data has disseminated worldwide shows how clearly important to the community open access and Genome Biology has very strict open access, open source, and open data policies. Aswe all know, scientific research is a process of trial and error, and so is scientific publication. Even though journals rely on peer experts in the field to ensure the robustness of the analyses and minimize oversights, the evolving nature of scientific research means that given time, many studies could be contradicted or proven to be flawed. This is of course not because authors intend to mislead, but it is possible that a minor raw data pre-processing step or pre-assumption could

show abstract

Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints

Cited by 171 publications

References 49 publications

The Future of OA: A large-scale analysis projecting Open Access publication and readership

The Future of OA: A large-scale analysis projecting Open Access publication and readership

Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the peer-reviewed article

Open data in a deeply connected world

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About