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.

Results

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%).

Conclusions

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.

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.

 

F1000 working on ‘digital twin’ platform launches | Research Information

“F1000 is collaborating with two Chinese customers to develop open research publishing platforms dedicated to the research and application of collaborative robots and ‘digital twin’ technologies. Both will be the world’s first open publishing platforms in their fields and will launch for submission in July 2021. 

The platforms will utilise F1000’s open research publishing model, enabling all research outputs to be published open access, as well as combining the benefits of pre-printing (providing rapid publication with no editorial bias) with mechanisms to assure quality and transparency (invited and open peer review, archiving and indexing). They also offer researchers an open and transparent peer review process and have a mandatory FAIR data policy to provide full and easy access to the source data underlying the results….”

F1000 working on ‘digital twin’ platform launches | Research Information

“F1000 is collaborating with two Chinese customers to develop open research publishing platforms dedicated to the research and application of collaborative robots and ‘digital twin’ technologies. Both will be the world’s first open publishing platforms in their fields and will launch for submission in July 2021. 

The platforms will utilise F1000’s open research publishing model, enabling all research outputs to be published open access, as well as combining the benefits of pre-printing (providing rapid publication with no editorial bias) with mechanisms to assure quality and transparency (invited and open peer review, archiving and indexing). They also offer researchers an open and transparent peer review process and have a mandatory FAIR data policy to provide full and easy access to the source data underlying the results….”

ACRL’s Publications in Librarianship Monograph Series Launches Open Peer Review for Intersections of Open Educational Resources and Information Literacy – ACRL Insider

“ACRL’s Publications in Librarianship (PIL) series—a peer-reviewed collection of books that examine emerging theories and research—is launching its third open peer review, for Intersections of Open Educational Resources and Information Literacy, edited by Elizabeth Dill and Mary Ann Cullen….”

ACRL’s Publications in Librarianship Monograph Series Launches Open Peer Review for Intersections of Open Educational Resources and Information Literacy – ACRL Insider

“ACRL’s Publications in Librarianship (PIL) series—a peer-reviewed collection of books that examine emerging theories and research—is launching its third open peer review, for Intersections of Open Educational Resources and Information Literacy, edited by Elizabeth Dill and Mary Ann Cullen….”

Springer Nature and the University of California join together to better understand author attitudes to open research | Corporate Affairs Homepage | Springer Nature

“Springer Nature and the University of California (UC) today launched a new initiative to gain greater understanding of researcher attitudes to and motivations towards open research practices (including open access articles, data, and code; transparent peer review; and preprints). As part of the partnership, participating UC authors will also have the option to trial Guided Open Access (GOA) for some flagship Nature titles….”

eLife and PREreview partner to promote greater diversity in peer review | For the press | eLife

“eLife is pleased to announce today a new partnership with PREreview to engage more researchers from diverse backgrounds in peer review.

eLife and PREreview – an open project aimed at bringing more equity and diversity to the scholarly peer-review system – collaborated on a number of new initiatives last year. These included live-streamed preprint journal clubs, which brought together scientists globally for a series of virtual discussions around research posted as preprints. eLife also supported the pilot of PREreview Open Reviewers, an online peer review mentoring program that empowers early-career researchers to contribute to scholarly review.

With eLife at the cusp of exclusively reviewing manuscripts deposited as preprints, the two organisations are now continuing their joint efforts to involve more early-career researchers, and researchers from communities that are traditionally underrepresented within the peer-review process, in the public review of preprints. PREreview will work with eLife to extend the series of preprint journal clubs and develop a framework for scaling the PREreview Open Reviewers program to reach more research communities globally. They will also help create new ways to increase the engagement and use of eLife’s early-career reviewer pool….”

Open Science – F1000 Research

“Open science is a policy priority for the European Commission and is the standard method of working under its research and innovation funding programmes, as it improves the quality, efficiency and responsiveness of research.

As such, the Commission requires beneficiaries of all research and innovation funding, to make their publications available in open access and make their data as open as possible and as closed as necessary.

To help beneficiaries to meet this requirement, the Commission is launching a new Open Access publishing platform Open Research Europe which is dedicated to providing all Horizon 2020 (and soon Horizon Europe) beneficiaries and their collaborators with an easy, high quality venue to publish their research at no cost to themselves.

You can find out more about Open Research Europe further down this page….”

Ants-Review: A Privacy-Oriented Protocol for Incentivized Open Peer Reviews on Ethereum

Abstract. Peer review is a necessary and essential quality control step for scienti?c publications but lacks proper incentives. Indeed, the process, which is very costly in terms of time and intellectual investment, not only is not remunerated by the journals but it is also not openly recognized by the academic community as a relevant scienti?c output for a researcher. Therefore, scienti?c dissemination is a?ected in timeliness, quality and fairness. Here, to solve this issue, we propose a blockchainbased incentive system that rewards scientists for peer reviewing other scientists’ work and that builds up trust and reputation. We designed a privacy-oriented protocol of smart contracts called Ants-Review that allows authors to issue a bounty for open anonymous peer reviews on Ethereum. If requirements are met, peer reviews will be accepted and paid by the approver proportionally to their assessed quality. To promote ethical behaviour and inclusiveness the system implements a gami?ed mechanism that allows the whole community to evaluate the peer reviews and vote for the best ones.