Notify: Repository and Services Interoperability Project – COAR

“Our current research and social context – the coronavirus pandemic, economic upheaval, climate change, racial injustice – requires timely and reliable research results, shared by, and with, all parts of the world.

On January 28, 2021, COAR launched the Notify: Repository and Services Interoperability Project.  The aim of this project is to develop a standard and interoperable approach that will link reviews and endorsements from different services with the research outputs housed in the distributed network of preprint servers, archives, and repositories.

COAR has already developed a proposed model for (bi-directionally) linking resources held in repositories with related resources held in networked services using a distributed, message-oriented approach based on W3C Linked Data Notifications (LDN). The COAR model is described and illustrated in Modelling Overlay Peer Review Processes with Linked Data Notifications.

This project involves working with implementing partners to:

Aid the development of reference implementations of the identified use-cases involving repositories and networked services
Support high-level collaboration to align development in the different implementation projects
Support and encourage broad interoperability by establishing common practices, community norms and conventions
Engage with relevant development communities (e.g. for important repository and service platforms) to gain support with implementation….”

Notify: Repository and Services Interoperability Project – COAR

“Our current research and social context – the coronavirus pandemic, economic upheaval, climate change, racial injustice – requires timely and reliable research results, shared by, and with, all parts of the world.

On January 28, 2021, COAR launched the Notify: Repository and Services Interoperability Project.  The aim of this project is to develop a standard and interoperable approach that will link reviews and endorsements from different services with the research outputs housed in the distributed network of preprint servers, archives, and repositories.

COAR has already developed a proposed model for (bi-directionally) linking resources held in repositories with related resources held in networked services using a distributed, message-oriented approach based on W3C Linked Data Notifications (LDN). The COAR model is described and illustrated in Modelling Overlay Peer Review Processes with Linked Data Notifications.

This project involves working with implementing partners to:

Aid the development of reference implementations of the identified use-cases involving repositories and networked services
Support high-level collaboration to align development in the different implementation projects
Support and encourage broad interoperability by establishing common practices, community norms and conventions
Engage with relevant development communities (e.g. for important repository and service platforms) to gain support with implementation….”

UnisaRxiv – ScienceOpen

“UnisaRxiv is designed to provide a platform which allows for rapid dissemination of the latest findings in diverse topics and to promote submissions from any grade of researcher at the University of South Africa (Unisa) and beyond. Researchers at all career stages, including early career researchers, professionals, and senior scholars are invited to submit high quality research manuscripts.

Operating as a preprint repository, with open peer review, the entire publishing process will be accessible, transparent and accountable. Submission will be approved for posting after moderation, but not full peer review. Articles will be judged on the merit and scientific validity (sound scholarship) of the work. After posting authors are encouraged to invite open reviews and comments and to upload revised versions of their manuscripts.”

UnisaRxiv – A cutting-edge Preprint Server for the University of South Africa Press – ScienceOpen Blog

“In the last several years, preprint servers have become increasingly attractive to publishers as strides have been made, such as the assigning of digital object identifiers, that make preprints a better, more trackable form of scientific communication. Moreover, with the COVID-19 pandemic sweeping the globe, the scientific community has seen preprints play a major role in enabling the swift relaying of research results. Thus, there is a lot of excitement over the future of preprints and how they could transform the scientific publishing landscape. We are therefore excited to announce a new cooperation with the University of South Africa (Unisa) Press, with whom we have created a new preprint server: UnisaRxiv. UnisaRxiv will be a forum to facilitate open peer-review of preprint manuscripts and allow for rapid dissemination of the latest findings in diverse topics. …

As a preprint repository with open peer review, UnisaRxiv will help alleviate a lot of the burden from the peer-review process, while also making the process accessible, transparent and accountable. UnisaRxiv will be available free of charge to researchers affiliated with the University of South Africa, but researchers not affiliated with the university will be required to pay an article processing fee upon acceptance of their manuscript.  …”

Preprint Servers, Resource Allocation Conditions and Market Shocks | Open Research Community

Whereas opinions can diverge on whether the Covid-19 pandemic represents a watershed moment for the publishing market on a macro level, it is as likely that local publishing markets act as decisive environments for micro-level decisions of its constitutive players.

Preprint Servers, Resource Allocation Conditions and Market Shocks | Open Research Community

Whereas opinions can diverge on whether the Covid-19 pandemic represents a watershed moment for the publishing market on a macro level, it is as likely that local publishing markets act as decisive environments for micro-level decisions of its constitutive players.

Can Publishers Maintain Control of the Scholarly Record? – The Scholarly Kitchen

“More recently, as Oya and Roger analyzed in the spring, an alternative vision for preprints has emerged, one pursued by all of the major commercial publishers, among others. In this new model, publishers are promoting preprints but at the same time working to domesticate them, bringing them within their article submission workflows and linking preprints and versions of record in a way that will over time serve to deprecate the ability of the former to disrupt the latter. By restructuring the place of preprints less as part of a global research community (for example, for high energy physics) and instead linked directly with journal brands, publishers hope they will reinforce the existing value proposition. It remains to be seen how this vision will dovetail with, or perhaps over time impede, the mandate of community-based preprint services such as arXiv and bioRxiv to provide publisher-neutral platforms, decoupling the early sharing of research from the formal publishing stage in a way that enables authors to avoid having their findings associated exclusively with specific journals. …

 

If anything, the landscape for research data is more complicated than that for preprints. It has come to include domain-specific structures, cross-institutional generalist structures, and increasingly substantial institutional investments. There are also some interesting new models developing for dataset discovery and capturing datasets within records associated with researcher identity. …

 

The scholarly record is fracturing, as shown by these twin examples of preprints and research datasets. Publishers are pursuing an effort to integrate preprints into their workflows and value propositions, but whether they will succeed in doing so remains to be seen. They seem to be far less certain of how to similarly integrate research data, which does make sense given that datasets correspond less directly to the published article than does a preprint….

For the publishing sector, this fracture seems to pose challenges. Those parties that are concerned about consolidation and profit margins in publishing might see in these challenges an opportunity. While perhaps unrealistic, as a thought exercise, we wonder what it would look like to make a large-scale capital investment in promoting the fracture? Might scholarly societies or others interested in stewarding research communities find a way to promote a refactored scholarly record? ”

Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting | BMJ Open

Abstract:  Objectives The objective of this review is to identify all preprint platforms with biomedical and medical scope and to compare and contrast the key characteristics and policies of these platforms.

Study design and setting Preprint platforms that were launched up to 25 June 2019 and have a biomedical and medical scope according to MEDLINE’s journal selection criteria were identified using existing lists, web-based searches and the expertise of both academic and non-academic publication scientists. A data extraction form was developed, pilot tested and used to collect data from each preprint platform’s webpage(s).

Results A total of 44 preprint platforms were identified as having biomedical and medical scope, 17 (39%) were hosted by the Open Science Framework preprint infrastructure, 6 (14%) were provided by F1000 Research (the Open Research Central infrastructure) and 21 (48%) were other independent preprint platforms. Preprint platforms were either owned by non-profit academic groups, scientific societies or funding organisations (n=28; 64%), owned/partly owned by for-profit publishers or companies (n=14; 32%) or owned by individuals/small communities (n=2; 5%). Twenty-four (55%) preprint platforms accepted content from all scientific fields although some of these had restrictions relating to funding source, geographical region or an affiliated journal’s remit. Thirty-three (75%) preprint platforms provided details about article screening (basic checks) and 14 (32%) of these actively involved researchers with context expertise in the screening process. Almost all preprint platforms allow submission to any peer-reviewed journal following publication, have a preservation plan for read access and most have a policy regarding reasons for retraction and the sustainability of the service.

Conclusion A large number of preprint platforms exist for use in biomedical and medical sciences, all of which offer researchers an opportunity to rapidly disseminate their research findings onto an open-access public server, subject to scope and eligibility.