An easy access dashboard now provides links to scientific discussion and evaluation of bioRxiv preprints.

“Part of our mission at bioRxiv is to alert readers to reviews and discussion of preprints and support the different ways readers provide feedback to authors on their work. These include tweets, comments on preprints and community- or journal-organized peer reviews. bioRxiv improves discoverability of such efforts by linking to peer reviews, community discussions and mentions of the preprint in social and traditional media. By aggregating this information in a new dashboard, we are now making these even easier for readers to find and access.

A series of new icons now appears in the dashboard launch bar, above each Abstract, representing different sources of preprint discussion or evaluation; the numbers of each evaluation or interaction are shown, and clicking on one of the icons opens a dashboard with details of the entries in that section….”

Primer on the Rights Retention Strategy | Zenodo

Abstract: The rights retention strategy (RRS) is a new tool to help academic authors retain rights over their manuscripts. This will allow you to freely share your author accepted manuscript at any time. The RRS is simple and elegant; authors need follow only two steps. (1) Add the following text, e.g. to the cover page, or acknowledgements, to your manuscript before submission to a journal: “A CC BY or equivalent licence is applied to the AAM arising from this submission.” (2) Once your article is accepted for publication, you can deposit your version of the manuscript in a public repository. This strategy has been developed by cOAlition-S, but can be used by all authors, irrespective of funding. Here I describe pros and cons of this  approach, but recommend its adoption by scholars as a way to retain ownership of their own content.

Research Square, Kudos Partner to Expand Research Communication Services for Authors

“Leading research communication platforms Research Square and Kudos have partnered to help preprint authors accelerate and maximize exposure of their newly shared research. A new package of communication products and services, launched today, will create and disseminate web profile pages for authors’ new research.  …”

University of Maryland Libraries becomes the institutional home of SocArXiv – News | UMD Libraries

“The University of Maryland (UMD) Libraries is pleased to announce that it has become the institutional home of SocArXiv, an interdisciplinary, open access repository of scholarship. The new partnership between the Libraries and SocArXiv ensures the future development and sustainability of the repository, which had previously received seed funding from the libraries at the University of California, Los Angeles, (UCLA) and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT), with additional support from the Sloan Foundation, the Open Societies Foundation, and the College of Behavioral and Social Sciences at UMD. Working with partners, the UMD Libraries will sponsor SocArXiv to help sustain shared infrastructure for open scholarship and to provide equitable access to this diverse collection of research for scholars at UMD and around the world….”

Analysis of single comments left for bioRxiv preprints till September 2019 – Biochemia Medica

Abstract:  Introduction

While early commenting on studies is seen as one of the advantages of preprints, the type of such comments, and the people who post them, have not been systematically explored.

Materials and methods

We analysed comments posted between 21 May 2015 and 9 September 2019 for 1983 bioRxiv preprints that received only one comment on the bioRxiv website. The comment types were classified by three coders independently, with all differences resolved by consensus.


Our analysis showed that 69% of comments were posted by non-authors (N = 1366), and 31% by the preprints’ authors themselves (N = 617). Twelve percent of non-author comments (N = 168) were full review reports traditionally found during journal review, while the rest most commonly contained praises (N = 577, 42%), suggestions (N = 399, 29%), or criticisms (N = 226, 17%). Authors’ comments most commonly contained publication status updates (N = 354, 57%), additional study information (N = 158, 26%), or solicited feedback for the preprints (N = 65, 11%).


Our results indicate that comments posted for bioRxiv preprints may have potential benefits for both the public and the scholarly community. Further research is needed to measure the direct impact of these comments on comments made by journal peer reviewers, subsequent preprint versions or journal publications.

Day-to-day discovery of preprint–publication links | SpringerLink

Abstract:  Preprints promote the open and fast communication of non-peer reviewed work. Once a preprint is published in a peer-reviewed venue, the preprint server updates its web page: a prominent hyperlink leading to the newly published work is added. Linking preprints to publications is of utmost importance as it provides readers with the latest version of a now certified work. Yet leading preprint servers fail to identify all existing preprint–publication links. This limitation calls for a more thorough approach to this critical information retrieval task: overlooking published evidence translates into partial and even inaccurate systematic reviews on health-related issues, for instance. We designed an algorithm leveraging the Crossref public and free source of bibliographic metadata to comb the literature for preprint–publication links. We tested it on a reference preprint set identified and curated for a living systematic review on interventions for preventing and treating COVID-19 performed by international collaboration: the COVID-NMA initiative ( The reference set comprised 343 preprints, 121 of which appeared as a publication in a peer-reviewed journal. While the preprint servers identified 39.7% of the preprint–publication links, our linker identified 90.9% of the expected links with no clues taken from the preprint servers. The accuracy of the proposed linker is 91.5% on this reference set, with 90.9% sensitivity and 91.9% specificity. This is a 16.26% increase in accuracy compared to that of preprint servers. We release this software as supplementary material to foster its integration into preprint servers’ workflows and enhance a daily preprint–publication chase that is useful to all readers, including systematic reviewers. This preprint–publication linker currently provides day-to-day updates to the biomedical experts of the COVID-NMA initiative.


Rights, sharing, and embargo policies

“Cell Press supports responsible sharing. We recognize that authors want to share their papers and we encourage this. Find out how you can share your paper here: .

(opens in a new window)

There are, however, some differences between Elsevier’s general policies and those of Cell Press. Most Cell Press articles are under a press embargo until the article is published because we generate substantial media coverage for relevant articles….

We are happy to consider manuscripts previously posted on preprint servers such as arXiv(opens in a new window), bioRxiv(opens in a new window), BioRN(opens in a new window), ChiRxiv(opens in a new window), ChiRN(opens in a new window), or SSRN(opens in a new window). Some of our journals, including Cell Genomics, Cell Reports, Current Biology, and iScience, also support direct submission of manuscripts from bioRxiv and/or medRxiv via transfer of manuscript files and metadata to the journal’s Editorial Manager site. Our support for posting of preprints only applies to the original submitted version of the manuscript; we do not support posting to preprint servers revisions that respond to editorial input and peer review or final accepted manuscripts….

For authors submitting from January 2021 onwards all Cell Press journals offer an open access publishing option. We have a range of journals that are either full open access, where all articles are published on an open access basis, or hybrid open access, which offer a choice between subscription and open access publishing.

Authors of papers published by Cell Press can share their accepted manuscript (the post-peer-review version that does not incorporate copy editing and proofing) via non-commercial hosting platforms, such as their institutional repository, after a posting embargo period has elapsed (this is distinct from the press embargo mentioned above)….

Cell Press open access and hybrid research journals support open access publication for groups of authors from Research4Life (R4L) countries. For papers where all of the authors are from a Group A and/or Group B R4L country we will grant a waiver or discount of the standard publishing fee, as appropriate. For fully open access journals the R4L eligibility check will be automatic. For hybrid journals please highlight your situation to the journal team during the submission process so we can adjust accordingly….”

Open access publishing in chemistry: a practical perspective informing new education

Abstract:  In the late 1990s chemists were among the early adopters of open access (OA) publishing. As also happened with preprints, the early successful adoption of OA publishing by chemists subsequently slowed down. In 2016 chemistry was found to be the discipline with the lowest proportion of OA articles in articles published between 2009 and 2015. To benefit from open science in terms of enhanced citations, collaboration, job and funding opportunities, chemistry scholars need updated information (and education) of practical relevance about open science. Suggesting avenues for quick uptake of OA publishing from chemists in both developed and developing countries, this article offers a critical perspective on academic publishing in the chemical sciences that will be useful to inform that education.


ASAPbio Community Call May 2021 ‘Bringing culture change to science communication’

“Preprints are often discussed in the context of broader culture change in science communication. Culture change can be a complex process that requires time and multiple approaches to facilitate a transition into new norms and practices. In our Community Call, we will host a roundtable discussion with three speakers involved in changing scientific culture. We will explore the approaches they have taken and what they have learned about what works (and does not) in supporting sustainable and scalable shifts in research practices.”

Post-publication peer review: another sort of quality control of the scientific record in biomedicine | Gaceta Médica de México

Abstract:  Traditional peer review is undergoing increasing questioning, given the increase in scientific fraud detected and the replication crisis biomedical research is currently going through. Researchers, academic institutions, and research funding agencies actively promote scientific record analysis, and multiple tools have been developed to achieve this. Different biomedical journals were founded with post-publication peer review as a feature, and there are several digital platforms that make this process possible. In addition, an increasing number biomedical journals allow commenting on articles published on their websites, which is also possible in preprint repositories. Moreover, publishing houses and researchers are largely using social networks for the dissemination and discussion of articles, which sometimes culminates in refutations and retractions.