Peer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals

PLoS ONE

Volumn 15, Issue 10 October, 2020, Pages

  Klebel, Thomas ^a   Reichmann, Stefan ^b   Polka, Jessica ^c   McDowell, Gary ^d   Penfold, Naomi ^e   Hindle, Samantha ^f   Ross Hellauer, Tony ^b  

^a KNOW CENTER   (Austria)

^b GRAZ UNIVERSITY OF TECHNOLOGY   (Austria)

^c ASAPbio   (United States)

^d Lightoller LLC   (United States)

^e eLife Sciences Publications   (United Kingdom)

^f Howard Hughes Medical Institute Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Cold Spring Harbor   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

CAREER; PEER REVIEW; REVIEW; POLICY; PUBLICATION;

PEER REVIEW; PERIODICALS AS TOPIC; POLICY;

EID: 85094179021     PISSN: None     EISSN: 19326203     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239518     Document Type: Review

References (38)

1. McKiernan EC, Bourne PE, Brown CT, Buck S, Kenall A, Lin J, et al. How open science helps researchers succeed. Rodgers P, editor. eLife. 2016 Jul 7; 5:e16800. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.16800 PMID: 27387362
2. Walker R, Da Silva P. Emerging trends in peer review-a survey. Front Neurosci. 2015; 9:169. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00169 PMID: 26074753
3. Jette AM. Opening Up the Black Box of Peer Review. Phys Ther. 2018 Apr 1; 98(4):207-8. https://doi. org/10.1093/ptj/pzx126 PMID: 29617970
4. Castelo-Baz P, Leira-Feijoo Y, Seoane-Romero JM, Varela-Centelles P, Seoane J. Accessibility to editorial information in Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery journals: The authors' point of view. J Cranio-Maxillofac Surg. 2015 Sep 1; 43(7):1078-81.
5. Chawla DS. Scientists struggle with confusing journal guidelines. Nature [Internet]. 2018 Nov 8 [cited 2019 Dec 13]; Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-018-07326-9
6. Nambiar R, Tilak P, Cerejo C. Quality of author guidelines of journals in the biomedical and physical sciences. Learn Publ. 2014; 27(3):201-6.
7. Klein M, Broadwell P, Farb SE, Grappone T. Comparing published scientific journal articles to their preprint versions. Int J Digit Libr. 2019 Dec 1; 20(4):335-50.
8. Sever R, Roeder T, Hindle S, Sussman L, Black K-J, Argentine J, et al. bioRxiv: The preprint server for biology. bioRxiv. 2019 Nov 6; 833400.
9. Elmore SA. Preprints: What Role Do These Have in Communicating Scientific Results? Toxicol Pathol. 2018 Jun 1; 46(4):364-5. https://doi.org/10.1177/0192623318767322 PMID: 29628000
10. Ginsparg P. Preprint Déjà Vu. EMBO J. 2016; 35(24):2620-5. https://doi.org/10.15252/embj. 201695531 PMID: 27760783
11. Balaji BP, Dhanamjaya M. Preprints in scholarly communication: Re-imagining metrics and infrastructures. Publications. 2019; 7(1).
12. Chiarelli A, Johnson R, Pinfield S, Richens E. Preprints and Scholarly Communication: Adoption, Practices, Drivers and Barriers. F1000Research. 2019 Jun 26; 8:971. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19619.2 PMID: 32055396
13. Teixeira da Silva JA, Dobranszki J. Preprint policies among 14 academic publishers. J Acad Librariansh. 2019 Mar; 45(2):162-70.
14. Teixeira da Silva JA. Preprints: Ethical hazard or academic liberation? KOME. 2017; 5(2):73-80.
15. Johansson MA, Reich NG, Meyers LA, Lipsitch M. Preprints: An underutilized mechanism to accelerate outbreak science. PLOS Med. 2018 Apr 3; 15(4):e1002549. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed. 1002549 PMID: 29614073
16. Peiperl L, Editors on behalf of the PM. Preprints in medical research: Progress and principles. PLOS Med. 2018 Apr 16; 15(4):e1002563. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002563 PMID: 29659580
17. Ross-Hellauer T. What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research. 2017 Aug 31; 6:588. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11369.2 PMID: 28580134
18. McDowell GS, Knutsen JD, Graham JM, Oelker SK, Lijek RS. Co-reviewing and ghostwriting by earlycareer researchers in the peer review of manuscripts. Rodgers P, Rodríguez-Bravo B, Sarabipour S, Grimaldo F, editors. eLife. 2019 Oct 31; 8:e48425. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.48425 PMID: 31668163
19. de Leeuw J. Nonlinear Principal Component Analysis and Related Techniques. In: Greenacre MJ, Blasius J, editors. Multiple correspondence analysis and related methods. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2006. p. 107-34.
20. Utrobičić A, Marušić Matko, Marušić Ana. Composition of editorial boards and peer review policies of Croatian journals indexed in Web of Science and Scopus. Eur Sci Ed. 2014; 40(2):31-3.
21. Sprowson AP, Rankin KS, McNamara I, Costa ML, Rangan A. Improving the peer review process in orthopaedic journals. Bone Jt Res. 2013 Nov; 2(11):245-7.
22. Wicherts JM. Peer Review Quality and Transparency of the Peer-Review Process in Open Access and Subscription Journals. PLOS ONE. 2016 Jan 29; 11(1):e0147913. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone. 0147913 PMID: 26824759
23. Resnik DB, Elmore SA. Ensuring the Quality, Fairness, and Integrity of Journal Peer Review: A Possible Role of Editors. Sci Eng Ethics. 2016 Feb 1; 22(1):169-88. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11948-015-9625-5 PMID: 25633924
24. Fry J, Spezi V, Probets S, Creaser C. Towards an understanding of the relationship between disciplinary research cultures and open access repository behaviors. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2016 Nov; 67 (11):2710-24.
25. Fleck C. The Impact Factor Fetishism. Eur J Sociol. 2013 Aug; 54(2):327-56.
26. Guetzkow J, Lamont M, Mallard G. What is originality in the humanities and the social sciences? Am Sociol Rev. 2004 Apr 1; 69(2):190-212.
27. Google Scholar Metrics. Google Scholar Metrics [Internet]. 2019 [cited 2019 Nov 15]. Available from: https://scholar.google.at/citations?view_op=top_venues & hl=en & vq=en
28. Giustini D, Boulos MNK. Google Scholar is not enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. Online J Public Health Inform. 2013; 5(2):214. https://doi.org/10.5210/ojphi.v5i2.4623 PMID: 23923099
29. Kreiner G. The Slavery of the h-index-Measuring the Unmeasurable. Front Hum Neurosci [Internet]. 2016 Nov 2 [cited 2019 Dec 20]; 10. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5089989/
30. Hutchins BI, Yuan X, Anderson JM, Santangelo GM. Relative Citation Ratio (RCR): A New Metric That Uses Citation Rates to Measure Influence at the Article Level. PLOS Biol. 2016 Sep 6; 14(9):e1002541. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1002541 PMID: 27599104
31. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria; 2019. Available from: https://www.R-project.org/
32. Wickham H, Averick M, Bryan J, Chang W, McGowan L, François R, et al. Welcome to the Tidyverse. J Open Source Softw. 2019 Nov 21; 4(43):1686.
33. Greenacre M, Nenadic O. ca: Simple, Multiple and Joint Correspondence Analysis [Internet]. 2018. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ca
34. Greenacre MJ, Blasius J, editors. Multiple correspondence analysis and related methods. Boca Raton: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2006. 581 p. (Statistics in the social and behavioral sciences series).
35. Wickham H. ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. Second edition. Cham: Springer; 2016. 260 p. (Use R!).
36. Silge J, Robinson D. tidytext: Text Mining and Analysis Using Tidy Data Principles in R. J Open Source Softw. 2016 Jul 11; 1(3):37.
37. Tierney N. visdat: Preliminary Visualisation of Data [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://CRAN.Rproject. org/package=visdat
38. Slowikowski K. ggrepel: Automatically Position Non-Overlapping Text Labels with "ggplot2" [Internet]. 2019. Available from: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=ggrepel