Preprints and scholarly communication: An exploratory qualitative study of adoption, practices, drivers and barriers

F1000Research

Volumn 8, Issue , 2019, Pages

  Chiarelli, Andrea ^a   Johnson, Rob ^a   Pinfield, Stephen ^b   Richens, Emma ^a  

^a Research Consulting Limited   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SHEFFIELD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Innovation diffusion theory; Peer review; Preprints; Scholarly communication

Indexed keywords

ADOPTION; ADULT; ARTICLE; DIFFUSION; GENETIC TRANSCRIPTION; HUMAN; PEER REVIEW; PSYCHOLOGY; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; QUALITY CONTROL; SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION; SCIENTIFIC LITERATURE; SEMI STRUCTURED INTERVIEW; THEMATIC ANALYSIS; THEORETICAL STUDY; TRUST; PERSONNEL; PUBLISHING; STRESS;

HUMANS; PREPRINTS AS TOPIC; PUBLISHING; RESEARCH PERSONNEL; SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION;

EID: 85076390371     PISSN: 20461402     EISSN: 1759796X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.19619.1     Document Type: Article

References (79)

1. Abdill RJ, Blekhman R: Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints. eLife. 2019; 8: pii: e45133.
2. ASAPbio: University policies and statements on hiring, promotion, and journal license negotiation. (n.d.).
3. Balaji B, Dhanamjaya M: Preprints in Scholarly Communication: Re-Imagining Metrics and Infrastructures. Publications. 2019; 7(1): 6.
4. Ball P: Leading mathematician launches arXiv “overlay” journal. Nature. 2015 [cited 2019 Oct 11]; 526(7571): 146.
5. Baughman S, Roebuck G, Arlitsch K: Reporting practices of institutional repositories: Analysis of responses from two surveys. J Libr Adm. 2018; 58(1): 65-80.
6. Berg JM, Bhalla N, Bourne PE, et al.: SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. Preprints for the life sciences. Science. 2016; 352(6288): 899-901.
7. bioRxiv.
8. Bourne PE, Polka JK, Vale RD, et al.: Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint submission. PLoS Comput Biol. 2017; 13(5): e1005473.
9. Braun V, Clarke V: Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qual Res Psychol. 2006; 3(2): 77-101.
10. Callaway E: Preprints come to life. Nature. 2013; 503(7475): 180.
11. Cambridge University Press: Cambridge announces open research platform. 2019.
12. Carà PD, Ciriminna R, Pagliaro M: Has the time come for preprints in chemistry? ACS Omega. 2017; 2(11): 7923-7928.
13. Carneiro CFD, Queiroz VGS, Moulin TC, et al.: Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature. BioRxiv. 2019.
14. Chiarelli A, Johnson R, Pinfield S, et al.: Interviewees and mapping of interview questions to areas of Innovation Diffusion Theory. 2019a. http://www.doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3538919
15. Chiarelli A, Johnson R, Pinfield S, et al.: Practices, drivers and impediments in the use of preprints (Phase 1 report). 2019b.
16. Chiarelli A, Johnson R, Pinfield S, et al.: Questions for future developments in the preprints landscape. 2019c.
17. Chiarelli A, Johnson R, Pinfield S, et al.: Accelerating scholarly communication: The transformative role of preprints. 2019d.
18. Chodacki J, Lemberger T, Lin J, et al.: Technical aspects of preprint services in the life sciences: a workshop report. Res Ideas Outcomes. 2017; 3: e11825.
19. Cobb M: The prehistory of biology preprints: A forgotten experiment from the 1960s. PLoS Biol. 2017; 15(11): e2003995.
20. COPE Council: COPE Discussion document: Preprints. 2018.
21. Crossref: Crossref to accept preprints in change to long-standing policy EurekAlert! Science News. 2016; Retrieved May 15, 2019.
22. Davis PM, Fromerth MJ: Does the arXiv lead to higher citations and reduced publisher downloads for mathematics articles? Scientometrics. 2007; 71(2): 203-215.
23. Desjardins-Proulx P, White EP, Adamson JJ, et al.: The case for open preprints i biology. PLoS Biol. 2013; 11(5): e1001563.
24. Fraser J, Polka J: Together scientists and journalists can spot poor preprints. Nature. 2018; 560(7720): 553.
25. Fraser N, Momeni F, Mayr P, et al.: The effect of bioRxiv preprints on citations and altmetrics. BioRxiv. 2019.
26. Fry NK, Marshall H, Mellins-Cohen T: In praise of preprints. Microb Genom. 2019 5(4): e000259.
27. Fu DY, Hughey JJ: Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the peer-reviewed article. BioRxiv. 2019.
28. Ginsparg P: Preprint Déjà Vu. EMBO J. 2016; 35(24): 2620-2625.
29. Green T: Is open access affordable? Why current models do not work and wh we need internet-era transformation of scholarly communications. Learn Publ. 2019; 32(1): 13-25.
30. Hampson C: The adoption of open access funds among Canadian academic research libraries, 2008-2012. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research. 2014; 9(2): 2008-2012.
31. Harnad S: The Invisible Hand of Peer Review. Nature. 1998.
32. Johansson MA, Reich NG, Meyers LA, et al.: Preprints: An underutilized mechanism to accelerate outbreak science. PLoS Med. 2018; 15(4): e1002549.
33. Jones R, Andrew T, MacColl J: The institutional repository. Oxford: Chandos Publishing. 2006.
34. Kaiser J: The preprint dilemma. Science. 2017; 357(6358): 1344-1349.
35. Kelly AR, Autry MK: Access, accommodation, and science: Knowledge in an “open” world. First Monday. 2013; 18(6).
36. Khera R: Sharing science at today’s pace: an experience with preprints. BMJ. 2018.
37. Klein M, Broadwell P, Farb SE, et al.: Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions. 2016; 1-16.
38. Kleinert S, Horton R, Editors of the Lancet family of journals: Preprints with The Lancet: joining online research discussion platforms. Lancet. 2018; 391(10139): 2482-2483.
39. Kling R, McKim G: Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 2000; 51(14): 1306-1320.
40. Krumholz HM, Ross JS, Otto CM: Will research preprints improve healthcare for patients? BMJ. 2018; 362: k3628.
41. Larivière V, Sugimoto CR, Macaluso B, et al.: arXiv E-prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2014; 65(6): 1157-1169.
42. Lauer MS, Krumholz HM, Topol EJ: Time for a prepublication culture in clinical research? Lancet. 2015; 386(10012): 2447-2449.
43. Lee CJ, Sugimoto CR, Zhang G, et al.: Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2013; 64(1): 2-17.
44. Leopold SS, Haddad FS, Sandell LJ, et al.: Editorial: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, The Bone & Joint Journal, The Journal of Orthopaedic Research, and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Will Not Accept Clinical Research Manuscripts Previously Posted to Preprint Servers. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019; 477(1): 1-4.
45. Luther J: The stars are aligning for preprints. Retrieved December 11, 2017, from Scholarly Kitchen [web blog], 2017.
46. Mallapaty S: Indian scientists launch preprint repository to boost research quality. Nature. 2019.
47. Martín-Martín A, Costas R, van Leeuwen T, et al.: Evidence of open access of scientific publications in Google Scholar: A large-scale analysis. J Informetr. 2018; 12(3): 819-841.
48. McGlynn T: What’s up with preprints? Retrieved November 14, 2019, from Small Pond Science. Published 2017.
49. McKiernan EC, Schimanski LA, Nieves CM, et al.: Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations. 2019.
50. Nallamothu BK, Hill JA: Preprints and Cardiovascular Science: Prescient or Premature? Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017; 10(9): pii: e000033.
51. Nature Preceedings.
52. Neylon C, Pattinson D, Bilder G, et al.: On the origin of nonequivalent states: How we can talk about preprints [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Res. 2017; 6: 608.
53. Nicholas D, Watkinson A, Volentine R, et al.: Trust and authority in scholarly communications in the light of the digital transition: Setting the scene for a major study. Learn Publ. 2014; 27(2): 121-134.
54. Peer J: PeerJ preprints to stop accepting new preprints Sep 30th 2019. PeerJblog. 2019.
55. Pinfield S: Self-archiving publications. In G. Gorman & F. Rowland (Eds.), Scholarly Publishing in and Electronic Era: International Yearbook of Library and Information Management 2004-2005. London: Facet Publishing. 2004; 118-145.
56. Pinfield S, Middleton C: Researchers’ adoption of an institutional central fund for open-access article-processing charges: A case study using Innovation Diffusion Theory. SAGE Open. 2016; 6(1).
57. Polka J: Preprints in academic hiring. Retrieved March 13, 2019, from DORA blog, 2018.
58. Research England: REF 2019/01: Guidance on submissions. London; 2019.
59. Rittman M: Preprints as a Hub for Early-Stage Research Outputs. 2018.
60. Rogers EM: Diffusion of innovations. (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press. 2003.
61. Sarabipour S, Debat HJ, Emmott E, et al.: On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective. PLoS Biol. 2019; 17(2): e3000151.
62. Sarabipour S: Preprints are good for science and good for the public. 2018.
63. Sever R, Eisen M, Inglis J: Plan U: Universal access to scientific and medical research via funder preprint mandates. PLoS Biol. 2019; 17(6): e3000273.
64. Sheldon T: Preprints could promote confusion and distortion. Nature. 2018; 559(7715): 445.
65. SHERPA/RoMEO: SHERPA RoMEO Colours, Pre-print, Post-print, Definitions and Terms. Retrieved May 15, 2019. (n.d.).
66. Smith A: The journal as an overlay on preprint databases. Learn Publ. 2000; 13(1): 43-8.
67. Smith JWT: The deconstructed journal - a new model for academic publishing. Learn Publ. 1999; 12(2): 79-91.
68. Suber P: Open Access. MIT Press. 2012.
69. Teixeira da Silva JA: The preprint wars. AME Med J. 2017; 2: 74.
70. Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobránszki J: Preprint policies among 14 academic publishers. J Acad Libr. 2019; 45(2): 162-170.
71. Tennant J, Bauin S, James S, et al.: The evolving preprint landscape: Introductory report for the Knowledge Exchange working group on preprints. BITSS. 2018; 5.
72. Tennant J, Gatto L, Logan C: Preprints help journalism, not hinder it. Nature. 2018; 560(7720): 553.
73. Tennant J, Crane H, Crick T, et al.: Ten hot topics around scholarly publishing. Publications. 2019; 7(2): 34.
74. Twitter.
75. Vale RD: Accelerating scientific publication in biology. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 112(44): 13439-13446.
76. Velterop J: Of subscriptions and article processing charges. 2018.
77. Wang X, Cui Y, Xu S, et al.: The state and evolution of Gold open access: a country and discipline level analysis. Aslib J Inform Manag. 2018; 70(5): 573-584.
78. Warr WA: Evaluation of an experimental chemistry preprint server. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2003; 43(2): 362-373.
79. Xia J: Diffusionism and open access. J Doc. 2012; 68(1): 72-99.