On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective

PLoS Biology

Volumn 17, Issue 2, 2019, Pages

  Sarabipour, Sarvenaz ^a   Debat, Humberto J ^b   Emmott, Edward ^c   Burgess, Steven J ^d   Schwessinger, Benjamin ^e   Hensel, Zach ^f  

^a Johns Hopkins University   (United States)

^b INSTITUTO NACIONAL DE TECNOLOGÍA AGROPECUARIA INTA   (Argentina)

^c Northeastern University   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS AT URBANA CHAMPAIGN   (United States)

^e AUSTRALIAN NATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (Australia)

^f INSTITUTO DE TECNOLOGIA QUÍMICA E BIOLÓGICA   (Portugal)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ADOPTION; ARTICLE; CAREER; EMPLOYER; FUNDING; HUMAN; LANDSCAPE; PEER REVIEW; PUBLICATION; SCIENTIST; CAREER MOBILITY; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PERSONNEL; PROCEDURES; PSYCHOLOGY;

BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH; CAREER MOBILITY; HUMANS; PEER REVIEW, RESEARCH; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; PREPRINTS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH PERSONNEL;

EID: 85062593446     PISSN: 15449173     EISSN: 15457885     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151     Document Type: Article

References (80)

1. Polka JK, Kiley R, Konforti B, Stern B, Vale RD. Publish peer reviews. Nature. 2018; 560(7720):545–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-018-06032-w PMID: 30158621
2. Allison DB, Brown AW, George BJ, Kaiser KA. Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors. Nature. 2016; 530 (7588):27–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/530027a PMID: 26842041
3. Kovanis M, Porcher R, Ravaud P, Trinquart L. The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise. PLoS ONE. 2016; 11(11):14.
4. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2006; 99(4):178–82. PMID: 16574968
5. Balietti S. Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems. The Conversation. 2016. https://theconversation.com/heres-how-competition-makes-peer-review-more-unfair-62936. [cited 13 February 2019].
6. Kaiser J. The Preprint Dilemma. Science. 2017; 357(6358):1344–5. https://doi.org/10.1126/science. 357.6358.1344 PMID: 28963238
7. PrePubMed. http://www.prepubmed.org/. [cited 12 February 2019].
8. Desjardins-Proulx P, White EP, Adamson JJ, Ram K, Poisot T, Gravel D. The Case for Open Preprints in Biology. PLoS Biol. 2013; 11(5):5.
9. arXiv submission rate statistics. https://arxiv.org/help/stats/2017_by_area/index. [cited 12 February 2019].
10. Huisman J, Smits J. Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective. Scientometrics. 2017; 113(1):633–50. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2310-5 PMID: 29056794
11. ASAPbio. Preprint stories. http://asapbio.org/preprint-info/preprint-stories. [cited 12 February 2019].
12. National Institutes of Health. Reporting Preprints and Other Interim Research Products. 2017. https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/not-od-17-050.html. [cited 12 February 2019].
13. Rouhanifard S. We Support Preprints. 2018. https://wesupportpreprints.wordpress.com/2018/11/14/sara-rouhanifard/. [cited 13 February 2019].
14. European Commission C. ERC Work Programme 2019. http://ec.europa.eu/research/participants/data/ref/h2020/wp/2018-2020/erc/h2020-wp19-erc_en.pdf. [cited 13 February 2019].
15. Polka J. Preprints in Academic hiring. 2018. https://sfdora.org/2018/08/14/preprints-in-academic-hiring/. [cited 13 February 2019].
16. ASAPbio. Funder Policies. http://asapbio.org/funder-policies. cited 13 February 2019].
17. The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment. https://sfdora.org/read/. [cited 13 February 2019].
18. Li H. Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM; 2013. arXiv: 1303.3997. [cited 13 February 2019].
19. Grimm JB, Muthusamy AK, Liang Y, Brown TA, Lemon WC, Patel R, et al. A general method to fine-tune fluorophores for live-cell and in vivo imaging; 2017. bioRxiv: https://doi.org/10.1101/127613 [cited 13 February 2019].
20. Rouhanifard SH, Dunagin M, Mellis IA, Bayatpour S, Symmons O, Cote A, et al. Single-molecule fluorescent amplification of RNA using clampFISH probes; 2017. bioRxiv. [cited 13 February 2019].
21. Fadero TC, Gerbich TM, Rana K, Suzuki A, DiSalvo M, Schaefer KN, et al. LITE microscopy: a technique for high numerical aperture, low photobleaching fluorescence imaging; 2017. bioRxiv: https://doi. org/10.1101/181644 [cited 13 February 2019].
22. Martens KJA, van Beljouw S, van der Els S, Baas S, Vink JNA, Brouns SJJ, et al. An open microscopy framework suited for tracking dCas9 in live bacteria; 2018. bioRxiv: https://doi.org/10.1101/437137 [cited 13 February 2019].
23. Martens K, Bader AN, Baas S, Rieger B, Hohlbein J. Phasor based single-molecule localization microscopy in 3D (pSMLM-3D): an algorithm for MHz localization rates using standard CPUs; 2017. bioRxiv: https://doi.org/10.1101/191957 [cited 13 February 2019].
24. Johansson MA, Reich NG, Meyers LA, Lipsitch M. Preprints: An underutilized mechanism to accelerate outbreak science. PLoS Med. 2018; 15(4):5.
25. Yozwiak NL, Schaffner SF, Sabeti PC. Make outbreak research open access. Nature. 2015; 518 (7540):477–9. https://doi.org/10.1038/518477a PMID: 25719649
26. Phan P, Wong D. Lost Opportunities. Nature. 2017; 552(7683):S18–S. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-017-07424-0 PMID: 29220004
27. Van Noorden R. Wellcome and Gates join bold European open-access plan. 2018. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07300-5. [cited 13 February 2019].
28. World Health Organization. FluID—a global influenza epidemiological data sharing platform. https://www.who.int/influenza/surveillance:monitoring/fluid/en/. [cited 13 February 2019].
29. Alemany S, Beltran J, Perez A, Ganzfried S. Predicting Hurricane Trajectories using a Recurrent Neural Network; 2018. arXiv: 1802.02548. [cited 13 February 2019].
30. Feng Y, Negron-Juarez RI, Patricola CM, Collins WD, Uriarte M, Hall JS, et al. Rapid remote sensing assessment of impacts from Hurricane Maria on forests of Puerto Rico. 2018. PeerJ Preprints: 26597. [cited 13 February 2019].
31. Reich N, Brooks L, Fox S, Kandula S, McGowan C, Moore E, et al. Forecasting seasonal influenza in the U.S.: A collaborative multi-year, multi-model assessment of forecast performance; 2018. bioRxiv. [cited 13 February 2019].
32. Winslow RL, Trayanova N, Geman D, Miller MI. Computational Medicine: Translating Models to Clinical Care. Science Translational Medicine. 2012; 4(158):11.
33. Henry D, Fitzpatrick T. Liberating the data from clinical trials. Bmj-British Medical Journal. 2015; 351:2.
34. Fenner M. In which I suggest a preprint archive for clinical trials. 2010. https://blogs.plos.org/mfenner/2010/10/16/in-which-i-suggest-a-preprint-archive-for-clinical-trials/. [cited 13 February 2019].
35. The Yoda Project. Trials By Generic Name. http://yoda.yale.edu/browsetrials/generic-name. [cited 13 February 2019].
36. MedRxiv. https://medrxiv.org. [cited 13 February 2019].
37. Oakden-Rayner L, Beam A, Palmer L. Medical journals should embrace preprints to address the reproducibility crisis. International Journal of Epidemiology 2018;1–3.
38. Raj A. We Support Preprints. 2018. https://wesupportpreprints.wordpress.com/2018/08/05/arjun-raj/. [cited 13 February 2019].
39. Emmott E. We Support Preprints. 2018. https://wesupportpreprints.wordpress.com/2018/05/06/edward-emmott/. [cited 13 February 2019].
40. Berg JM, Bhalla N, Bourne PE, Chalfie M, Drubin DG, Fraser JS, et al. Preprints for the life sciences. Science. 2016; 352(6288):899–901. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf9133 PMID: 27199406
41. Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. bioRxiv to Help Scientists Share Research Faster. 2017. https://chanzuckerberg.com/newsroom/biorxiv-to-help-scientists-share-research-faster/. [cited 13 February 2019].
42. Avasthi P, Soragni A, Bembenek JN. Journal clubs in the time of preprints. Elife. 2018; 7:3.
43. Kamoun S. Journals 2.0: a roadmap to reinvent scientific publishing. 2018. https://zenodo.org/record/1466784. [cited 13 February 2019].
44. Hochberg ME, Chase JM, Gotelli NJ, Hastings A, Naeem S. The tragedy of the reviewer commons. Ecology Letters. 2009; 12(1):2–4. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1461-0248.2008.01276.x PMID: 19087107
45. Lerback J, Hanson B. Journals invite too few women to referee. Nature. 2017; 541(7638):455–7. https://doi.org/10.1038/541455a PMID: 28128272
46. Kamoun S. Point of view: wither pre-publication peer review to reinvent scientific publishing. http://kamounlab.tumblr.com/post/178573217080/point-of-view-wither-pre-publication-peer-review. [cited 13 February 2019].
47. Teplitskiy M, Acuna D, Elamrani-Raoult A, Kording K, Evans J. The Social Structure of Consensus in Scientific Review; 2018. arXiv: 1802.01270. [cited 13 February 2019].
48. Lariviere V, Sugimoto CR, Macaluso B, Milojevic S, Cronin B, Thelwall M. arXiv E-Prints and the Journal of Record: An Analysis of Roles and Relationships. Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology. 2014; 65(6):1157–69.
49. Serghiou S, Ioannidis JPA. Altmetric Scores, Citations, and Publication of Studies Posted as Preprints. Jama-Journal of the American Medical Association. 2018; 319(4):402–3.
50. Slavov N. We Support Preprints. 2018. https://wesupportpreprints.wordpress.com/2018/08/07/nikolai-slavov/. [cited 13 February 2019].
51. Fang FC, Casadevall A. Retracted Science and the Retraction Index. Infection and Immunity. 2011; 79(10):3855–9. https://doi.org/10.1128/IAI.05661-11 PMID: 21825063
52. eLife. Research Advances. https://elifesciences.org/articles/research-advance. [cited 13 February 2019].
53. Teytelman L. Reevaluating the Quest for Negative Results. Science Editor. 2018; 4(1).
54. Negative Results: Scientific Journal. http://www.negative-results.org/. [cited 13 February 2019].
55. Weintraub PG. The Importance of Publishing Negative Results. Journal of Insect Science. 2016; 16:2.
56. Rockwell S, Kimler BE, Moulder JE. Publishing negative results: The problem of publication bias. Radiation Research. 2006; 165(6):623–5. https://doi.org/10.1667/RR3573.1 PMID: 16802861
57. Schwessinger B. Is being scooped the flip-side of a pre-print !?! It wasn’t for us with PloS. 2015. https://blushgreengrassatafridayafternoon.wordpress.com/2015/01/07/is-being-scooped-the-flip-side-of-a-pre-print-it-was-for-us/. [cited 13 February 2019].
58. EMBO Press. Protected as soon as you unveil your masterpiece. 2017. http://embo.org/news/articles/2017/protected-as-soon-as-you-unveil-your-masterpiece. [cited 13 February 2019].
59. Marder E. Scientific Publishing: Beyond scoops to best practices. Elife. 2017; 6:2.
60. Alvarez-Garcia I, Ganley E, Gasque G, Gross L, Di J, Grone B, et al. The importance of being second. PloS Biol. 2018; 16(1):e2005203. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2005203
61. Wikipedia. List of academic journals by preprint policy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_journals_by_preprint_policy. [cited 13 February 2019].
62. Denker SP. The Best of Both Worlds: Preprints and Journals. 2016. https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2016/10/the-best-of-both-worlds-preprints-and-journals/. [cited 13 February 2019].
63. PLOS. Attention Earth Sciences: PLOS ONE wants YOUR Preprint. 2018. https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2018/11/attention-earth-sciences-plos-one-wants-your-preprint/. [cited 13 February 2019].
64. John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Understand your funder’s agreement with Wiley. https://authorservices.wiley. com/author-resources/Journal-Authors/open-access/affiliation-policies-payments/funder-agreements. html. [cited 13 February 2019].
65. Chan Zuckerberg Initiative. Science Initiative Privacy Principles. 2018. https://www.chanzuckerberg. com/science-privacy-principles. [cited 13 February 2019].
66. PLOS. Power to the Preprint. 2018. https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2018/05/power-to-the-preprint/. [cited 13 February 2019].
67. PLOS. Preprints. https://www.plos.org/preprints. [cited 13 February 2019].
68. Vale RD. PNAS 2015 112 (44) 13439–13446; https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511912112 PMID: 26508643
69. Kahn S & Ginther DK.The impact of postdoctoral training on early careers in biomedicine. Nature Biotechnology (2017) 35, pages 90–94. https://doi.org/10.1038/nbt.3766 PMID: 28072769
70. Academic Karma. Making peer-review open, constructive and free. http://academickarma.org/. [cited 13 February 2019].
71. Till BM, Rudolfson N, Saluja S, Gnanaraj J, Samad L, Ljungman D, Shrime M. The Lancet 2019. Who is pirating medical literature? A bibliometric review of 28 million Sci-Hub downloads (2019) 7, ISSUE 1, PE30–E31.https://doi.org/10.1016/S2214-109X(18)30388-7
72. Laakso M, Björk B-C. Anatomy of open access publishing: a study of longitudinal development and internal structure. BMC Med. 2012; 10: 1–9.
73. eLife. INSIDE ELIFE. 2016. Opinion: Including preprints and interim research products in applications and reports. https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/ab75263c/opinion-including-preprints-and-interim-research-products-in-applications-and-reports. [cited 13 February 2019].
74. Greene CS. Welcome to biOverlay. 2018. https://www.bioverlay.org/post/welcome/. [cited 13 February 2019].
75. Bilder G. Members will soon be able to assign Crossref DOIs to preprints. 2016. https://www.crossref.org/blog/members-will-soon-be-able-to-assign-crossref-dois-to-preprints/. [cited 13 February 2019].
76. Abdill RJ, Blekhman R. Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints. 2019. bioRxiv. [cited 13 February 2019].
77. Spichtinger D. Research Research. Open research policy needs stronger rules and greater rewards. 2018. https://www.researchresearch.com/news/article/?articleId=1377355. [cited 13 February 2019].
78. Kaiser J. NIH enables investigators to include draft preprints in grant proposals. 2017. http://www. sciencemag.org/news/2017/03/nih-enables-investigators-include-draft-preprints-grant-proposals. [cited 13 February 2019].
79. PLOS Collections. Positively Negative: A New PLOS ONE Collection focusing on Negative, Null and Inconclusive Results. 2015. https://blogs.plos.org/everyone/2015/02/25/positively-negative-new-plos-one-collection-focusing-negative-null-inconclusive-results/. [cited 13 February 2019].
80. Bastian H. Breaking Down Pros and Cons of Preprints in Biomedicine. PLOS Blogs 2016. https://blogs. plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2016/05/01/breaking-down-pros-and-cons-of-preprints-in-biomedicine/. [cited 13 February 2019].