The never-ending story | Research Information

“At the same time, the REF open access mandate had just been announced, stating journal articles and some conference proceedings had to be publicly accessible within three months of acceptance for publication in order to be eligible for submission for the post-2014 research excellence framework. Given the double-whammy of easier depositing and REF urgency, WestminsterResearch saw self-deposits rocket from less than one per cent to more than 99 per cent while practice-based/non text-based entries mushroomed by 246 per cent.

‘The Haplo repository and REF open access mandate came at a similar time and the combined power of both led to this massive increase in self-deposits,’ highlights Watts. 

‘The mandates really helped people to comply to open access,’ she adds. ‘And we believe that factors contributing to more practice-based research included vastly improved templates and fields for these outputs… in the past, the repository just couldn’t take this content.’

Following these results and the looming REF2021, WestminsterResearch switched to a full Haplo open source-set up in 2018, and entries have continued to rise. As Watts put it: ‘I don’t think we’d have been able to support the increase in open access deposits without this rise in self-depositing.’…”

The never-ending story | Research Information

“At the same time, the REF open access mandate had just been announced, stating journal articles and some conference proceedings had to be publicly accessible within three months of acceptance for publication in order to be eligible for submission for the post-2014 research excellence framework. Given the double-whammy of easier depositing and REF urgency, WestminsterResearch saw self-deposits rocket from less than one per cent to more than 99 per cent while practice-based/non text-based entries mushroomed by 246 per cent.

‘The Haplo repository and REF open access mandate came at a similar time and the combined power of both led to this massive increase in self-deposits,’ highlights Watts. 

‘The mandates really helped people to comply to open access,’ she adds. ‘And we believe that factors contributing to more practice-based research included vastly improved templates and fields for these outputs… in the past, the repository just couldn’t take this content.’

Following these results and the looming REF2021, WestminsterResearch switched to a full Haplo open source-set up in 2018, and entries have continued to rise. As Watts put it: ‘I don’t think we’d have been able to support the increase in open access deposits without this rise in self-depositing.’…”

OSF Preprints | Building trust in preprints: recommendations for servers and other stakeholders

Abstract:  On January 20 and 21, 2020, ASAPbio, in collaboration with EMBL-EBI and Ithaka S+R, convened over 30 representatives from academia, preprint servers, publishers, funders, and standards, indexing and metadata infrastructure organisations at EMBL-EBI (Hinxton, UK) to develop a series of recommendations for best practices for posting and linking of preprints in the life sciences and ideally the broader research community. We hope that these recommendations offer guidance for new preprint platforms and projects looking to enact best practices and ultimately serve to improve the experience of using preprints for all.

Preprint Servers in Kidney Disease Research | American Society of Nephrology

Abstract:  Preprint servers, such as arXiv and bioRxiv, have disrupted the scientific communication landscape by providing rapid access to research before peer review. medRxiv was launched as a free online repository for preprints in the medical, clinical, and related health sciences in 2019. In this review, we present the uptake of preprint server use in nephrology and discuss specific considerations regarding preprint server use in medicine. Distribution of kidney-related research on preprint servers is rising at an exponential rate. Survey of nephrology journals identified that 15 of 17 (88%) are publishing original research accepted submissions that have been uploaded to preprint servers. After reviewing 52 clinically impactful trials in nephrology discussed in the online Nephrology Journal Club (NephJC), an average lag of 300 days was found between study completion and publication, indicating an opportunity for faster research dissemination. Rapid review of papers discussing benefits and risks of preprint server use from the researcher, publisher, or end user perspective identified 53 papers that met criteria. Potential benefits of biomedical preprint servers included rapid dissemination, improved transparency of the peer review process, greater visibility and recognition, and collaboration. However, these benefits come at the risk of rapid spread of results not yet subjected to the rigors of peer review. Preprint servers shift the burden of critical appraisal to the reader. Media may be especially at risk due to their focus on “late-breaking” information. Preprint servers have played an even larger role when late-breaking research results are of special interest, such as during the global coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Coronavirus disease 2019 has brought both the benefits and risks of preprint servers to the forefront. Given the prominent online presence of the nephrology community, it is poised to lead the medicine community in appropriate use of preprint servers.

 

How swamped preprint servers are blocking bad coronavirus research

“ArXiv, launched almost 30 years ago, was the first major preprint repository — but in recent years, discipline- and region-specific servers have mushroomed. Screening procedures vary, but an analysis of 44 servers posted last week on bioRxiv1 found that most have quality-control systems. Seventy-five per cent publicly provided information about their screening procedures, and 32% involved researchers in vetting articles for criteria such as relevance of content.

“I think there was perhaps a misconception that there are no screening checks that go on with preprint servers,” says Jamie Kirkham, a biostatistician at the University of Manchester, UK, and a co-author of the study. “We have actually found that most of them do.” 

BioRxiv and medRxiv have a two-tiered vetting process. In the first stage, papers are examined by in-house staff who check for issues such as plagiarism and incompleteness. Then manuscripts are examined by volunteer academics or subject specialists who scan for non-scientific content and health or biosecurity risks. BioRxiv mainly uses principal investigators; medRxiv uses health professionals. Occasionally, screeners flag papers for further examination by Sever and other members of the leadership team. On bioRxiv, this is usually completed within 48 hours. On medRxiv, papers are scrutinized more closely because they may be more directly relevant to human health, so the turnaround time is typically four to five days.

Sever emphasizes that the vetting process is mainly used to identify articles that might cause harm — for example, those claiming that vaccines cause autism or that smoking does not cause cancer — rather than to evaluate quality. For medical research, this also includes flagging papers that might contradict widely accepted public-health advice or inappropriately use causal language in reporting on a medical treatment.

But during the pandemic, screeners are watching for other types of content that need extra scrutiny — including papers that might fuel conspiracy theories. …”

How swamped preprint servers are blocking bad coronavirus research

“ArXiv, launched almost 30 years ago, was the first major preprint repository — but in recent years, discipline- and region-specific servers have mushroomed. Screening procedures vary, but an analysis of 44 servers posted last week on bioRxiv1 found that most have quality-control systems. Seventy-five per cent publicly provided information about their screening procedures, and 32% involved researchers in vetting articles for criteria such as relevance of content.

“I think there was perhaps a misconception that there are no screening checks that go on with preprint servers,” says Jamie Kirkham, a biostatistician at the University of Manchester, UK, and a co-author of the study. “We have actually found that most of them do.” 

BioRxiv and medRxiv have a two-tiered vetting process. In the first stage, papers are examined by in-house staff who check for issues such as plagiarism and incompleteness. Then manuscripts are examined by volunteer academics or subject specialists who scan for non-scientific content and health or biosecurity risks. BioRxiv mainly uses principal investigators; medRxiv uses health professionals. Occasionally, screeners flag papers for further examination by Sever and other members of the leadership team. On bioRxiv, this is usually completed within 48 hours. On medRxiv, papers are scrutinized more closely because they may be more directly relevant to human health, so the turnaround time is typically four to five days.

Sever emphasizes that the vetting process is mainly used to identify articles that might cause harm — for example, those claiming that vaccines cause autism or that smoking does not cause cancer — rather than to evaluate quality. For medical research, this also includes flagging papers that might contradict widely accepted public-health advice or inappropriately use causal language in reporting on a medical treatment.

But during the pandemic, screeners are watching for other types of content that need extra scrutiny — including papers that might fuel conspiracy theories. …”

The relationship between bioRxiv preprints, citations and altmetrics | Quantitative Science Studies | MIT Press Journals

Abstract:  A potential motivation for scientists to deposit their scientific work as preprints is to enhance its citation or social impact. In this study we assessed the citation and altmetric advantage of bioRxiv, a preprint server for the biological sciences. We retrieved metadata of all bioRxiv preprints deposited between November 2013 and December 2017, and matched them to articles that were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. Citation data from Scopus and altmetric data from Altmetric.com were used to compare citation and online sharing behavior of bioRxiv preprints, their related journal articles, and nondeposited articles published in the same journals. We found that bioRxiv-deposited journal articles had sizably higher citation and altmetric counts compared to nondeposited articles. Regression analysis reveals that this advantage is not explained by multiple explanatory variables related to the articles’ publication venues and authorship. Further research will be required to establish whether such an effect is causal in nature. bioRxiv preprints themselves are being directly cited in journal articles, regardless of whether the preprint has subsequently been published in a journal. bioRxiv preprints are also shared widely on Twitter and in blogs, but remain relatively scarce in mainstream media and Wikipedia articles, in comparison to peer-reviewed journal articles.

 

 

The NIH Preprint Pilot: A New Experiment for a New Era – NLM Musings from the Mezzanine

“Recognizing the growing interest in preprints, NLM is today launching the first phase of the NIH Preprint Pilot, which will test the viability of making preprints searchable in PubMed Central (PMC) and, by extension, discoverable in PubMed, starting with COVID-19 preprints reporting NIH-supported research.

To be clear, NLM is not building a preprint server for NIH investigators, nor are we developing a comprehensive preprint discovery resource. Rather, through this pilot, we plan to add a curated collection of preprints from eligible preprint servers to our established literature resources. In doing so, our goal is to improve scholarly communications by accelerating and expanding the findability of NIH research results.

With the encouragement of NIH leadership, NLM has been exploring ways to leverage its literature databases to help accelerate the discoverability and maximize the impact of NIH-supported research via preprints. The planned pilot builds on guidance released by NIH in March 2017, which encouraged NIH investigators to use preprints and other interim research products to speed the dissemination of research and enhance the rigor of their work through public comments and new scientific collaborations….”