In bid to boost transparency, bioRxiv begins posting peer reviews next to preprints | Science | AAAS

“BioRxiv, the server for life sciences preprints, has begun an experiment that allows select journals and independent peer-review services to publicly post evaluations of its papers should the authors make the request.

The idea is to make the peer-review process more transparent, and help authors more easily strengthen their manuscripts before they are submitted to journals. But some authors might balk at making critical reviews of their work available for anyone to read.

The experiment, called Transparent Review in Preprints, launched last week. To run it, bioRxiv has teamed with two publishers and two independent services that are providing peer reviews. In addition to increasing the transparency and usefulness of bioRxiv’s preprints, the initiative is also a platform to test models of “portable” peer reviews, or independent reviews that authors can share with any journal considering their work. (Traditionally, reviews are arranged and reviewed only by the journal considering a particular submission, not a third party.)…”

Scholarly Article or Book Chapter | Thoughts on Publishing Survey – how can we improve scientific publishing? | ID: sf268918d | Carolina Digital Repository

Abstract:  There are various pathways for scientists to share their work, but the most important method is the peer-reviewed manuscript. Lately, publishing in academic journals has become more competitive and time consuming, but fraudulent work and errors still occur in many journals. We propose an alternative publishing model that fits within our current model and could improve access to readers and support more efficient review. The goal of thoughts on publishing survey (TOPS) is to measure satisfaction levels of the current publishing model, propose an alternative publishing model, obtain feedback on the new model, and learn more about quality scientific articles and peer review. With this feedback, we highlight some areas that may improve publishing, for the reader, writer, and reviewer. We also assess the acceptance of an alternative model and identify ways that it could be implemented. Whatever scientific publishing may look like in the future, consumers and producers of these works should keep the goal in mind: “How can we make the peer-reviewed manuscript fit our workload and budget, and improve its value and reach to foster scientific advancement?”

 

Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature | bioRxiv

Abstract:  Preprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily measurable is completeness of reporting, as transparency can improve the reader’s ability to independently interpret data and reproduce findings. In this observational study, we compared random samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in PubMed-indexed journals in 2016 using a quality of reporting questionnaire. We found that peer-reviewed articles had, on average, higher quality of reporting than preprints, although this difference was small. We found larger differences favoring PubMed in subjective ratings of how clearly titles and abstracts presented the main findings and how easy it was to locate relevant reporting information. Interestingly, an exploratory analysis showed that preprints with figures and legends embedded within text had reporting scores similar to PubMed articles. These differences cannot be directly attributed to peer review or editorial processes, as manuscripts might already differ before submission due to greater uptake of preprints by particular research communities. Nevertheless, our results show that quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is within a similar range as that of peer-reviewed articles, albeit slightly lower on average, supporting the idea that preprints should be considered valid scientific contributions. An ongoing second phase of the project is comparing preprints to their own published versions in order to more directly assess the effects of peer review.

 

 

Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature | bioRxiv

Abstract:  Preprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily measurable is completeness of reporting, as transparency can improve the reader’s ability to independently interpret data and reproduce findings. In this observational study, we compared random samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in PubMed-indexed journals in 2016 using a quality of reporting questionnaire. We found that peer-reviewed articles had, on average, higher quality of reporting than preprints, although this difference was small. We found larger differences favoring PubMed in subjective ratings of how clearly titles and abstracts presented the main findings and how easy it was to locate relevant reporting information. Interestingly, an exploratory analysis showed that preprints with figures and legends embedded within text had reporting scores similar to PubMed articles. These differences cannot be directly attributed to peer review or editorial processes, as manuscripts might already differ before submission due to greater uptake of preprints by particular research communities. Nevertheless, our results show that quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is within a similar range as that of peer-reviewed articles, albeit slightly lower on average, supporting the idea that preprints should be considered valid scientific contributions. An ongoing second phase of the project is comparing preprints to their own published versions in order to more directly assess the effects of peer review.

 

 

Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles – first results are in! – ASAPbio

“A while ago, we blogged about our crowdsourced project to compare quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles. Almost a year later, we are happy to announce that our first results are now published in bioRxiv – in large part thanks to the people who joined us after reading our previous post!

This first part of the project aimed to study whether quality of reporting – measured by an objective questionnaire on the reporting of specific items within methods and results section – was different between samples of preprints from bioRxiv and peer-reviewed articles from PubMed. A second one, still ongoing, aims to compare preprints to their own published versions – and if you are interested in participating, keep reading to learn how to join!….”

Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles – first results are in! – ASAPbio

“A while ago, we blogged about our crowdsourced project to compare quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles. Almost a year later, we are happy to announce that our first results are now published in bioRxiv – in large part thanks to the people who joined us after reading our previous post!

This first part of the project aimed to study whether quality of reporting – measured by an objective questionnaire on the reporting of specific items within methods and results section – was different between samples of preprints from bioRxiv and peer-reviewed articles from PubMed. A second one, still ongoing, aims to compare preprints to their own published versions – and if you are interested in participating, keep reading to learn how to join!….”

Transparent review in preprints – Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

“Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL) today announced a new pilot project—Transparent Review in Preprints (TRiP)—that enables journals and peer review services to post peer reviews of submitted manuscripts on CSHL’s preprint server bioRxiv.

“The new project is part of broader efforts by bioRxiv to work with other organizations to help the scholarly publishing ecosystem evolve,” said John Inglis, co-founder of bioRxiv at CSHL.

The project is powered by the web annotation tool Hypothesis and will allow participating organizations to post peer reviews in dedicated Hypothesis groups alongside relevant preprints on the bioRxiv website. Authors must opt-in with the journal/service in advance. The use of restricted Hypothesis groups allows participating organizations to control the process and ensure that only reviews they approve are displayed. Readers will continue to be able to post their own reactions to individual preprints through bioRxiv’s dedicated comment section.

eLife and the EMBO Press journals, together with Peerage of Science and Review Commons, two journal-independent peer review initiatives, will be the first to participate. Several other groups plan to join the pilot later, including the American Society for Plant Biology and the Public Library of Science….”

EMBO and ASAPbio to launch a pre-journal portable review platform

“EMBO Press and ASAPbio have partnered to create Review Commons, a platform that peer-reviews research manuscripts in the life sciences before submission to a journal.  

Papers submitted to Review Commons, which will be launched in December 2019, will be assessed by expert referees without regard to any journal to which they might ultimately be submitted, and will be judged exclusively for their scientific rigor and merit. Review Commons will enable authors to publicly post the reviews and their own response to them on the preprint server bioRxiv and to submit their reviewed manuscript to an affiliated journal.

 

In the scholarly publishing process, reviewers typically evaluate manuscripts after submission to a journal. Beyond the requirement for technical rigor, editors and reviewers tend to be most concerned about whether the work meets the subjective criteria for the journal. If the work is rejected, the peer reviews are typically not reused by another journal. In this way, journal rejections across all fields waste an estimated 15 million hours of reviewer time each year and contribute to long publication delays for authors and readers.[1],[2]

 

Review Commons aims to accelerate and streamline the process of publishing by conducting high-quality, in-depth peer review of manuscripts before journal submission. Peer reviewers will be asked to evaluate the technical rigour of the work, make suggestions for improvements, and comment on the potential value of the work to specific communities. Authors can direct Review Commons to post reviews and their own responses to bioRxiv through the server’s new Transparent Review in Preprints (TRiP) project, where it will provide rich context for readers of their preprint. If authors decide to submit their work to a journal, it will allow editors to make efficient editorial decisions based on existing referee comments….”

Partnering to streamline review | The Official PLOS Blog

“I’m happy to announce PLOS’ participation in a new service, Review Commons, that will provide a platform for rapid, objective, journal-independent peer reviews for manuscripts and preprints. We are excited to be part of this initiative and to learn from our community’s response how we can rethink peer review to save authors’, reviewers’, and editors’ time and enhance transparency and objectiveness…. 

Created by ASAPbio and EMBO Press, Review Commons will organize a single round of journal-agnostic review for manuscripts in the life sciences submitted to the service. Upon receiving the reviews, the authors can decide to simply post them alongside their preprint on bioRxiv and/or to submit their manuscript — including reviews–to one of the 17 journals affiliated with Review Commons. If the chosen journal decides to proceed with the submission, it commits to not involve new reviewers unless a specific aspect of the article needs to be further evaluated. 

All the PLOS journals within scope — PLOS Biology, PLOS Computational Biology, PLOS Genetics, PLOS ONE and PLOS Pathogens — will welcome submissions reviewed at Review Commons. …”

WikiJournal User Group – Wikiversity

“The WikiJournal User Group publishes a set of open-access, peer-reviewed academic journals with no publishing costs to authors. Its goal is to provide free, quality-assured knowledge. Secondly, it aims to bridge the Academia-Wikipedia gap by enabling expert contributions in the traditional academic publishing format to improve Wikipedia content….

Appropriate material is integrated into Wikipedia for added reach and exposure….

At least 2 reviewers per article. All peer reviews are published and publicly accessible….

All of our published articles are openly accessible under a free Creative Commons Cc.logo.circle.svg or similar license….

We are a fully non-profit journal with a volunteer board of editors, and we therefore have no publication charges of any kind….

The journal group is also currently applying to be a Wikimedia Foundation Sister Project. This would give greater control over the workings and formatting of the site, as well as a dedicated domain name….”