New Developments in Preprinting and Preprint Review

Jeroen Bosman (UU)�Bianca Kramer (Sesame Open Science)

Jeroen Sondervan (UU)�Ludo Waltman (CWTS)

DOI: https//doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.7040997

Slide deck (also) available at: https://tinyurl.com/OSF2022Preprints

NB most images in this slidedeck are clickable!

Open Science Festival, Amsterdam, 1 September 2022

Welcome and introduction (5 min.)�

Part 1 - Preprinting

• Presentation
• Interactive discussion (breakout groups; 20 min.)

Part 2 - Preprint peer review

• Presentation
• Interactive discussion (breakout groups; 25 min.)

Part 3 - Publish Your Reviews

• Presentation

Interactive discussion (plenary; 25 min.)

Wrap up (5 min.)

Programme

Part 1 - Preprinting

• Early version of paper, chapter or other publication
• Before formal peer review
• AKA “early version”, “submitted version/manuscript”, “working paper”
• Shared publicly either before or on submission for more formal publication with peer review
• Can have updated/corrected versions, e.g. based on comments
• Manuscripts shared as preprint now accepted by almost all journals/publishers

Part 1: Preprints - Main characteristics

Dissemination and access reasons:

• Speeding up discovery of (preliminary) research results
• Generating early feedback, also before journal submission
• Providing free access to research outcomes

​

Registration reasons:

• Establishing evidence on researchers’ most recent activity
• Establishing priority of discoveries
• Early registration of who is working on what, facilitating new collaborations

Part 1: Preprinting - why?

Part 1: Preprinting - where?

disciplinary

linked to publisher

regional

at

at

by

by

used

by

by

by

Part 1: Preprinting - where?

Part 1: Preprinting - how?

Source: A Practical Guide to Preprints: Accelerating Scholarly Communication (1.0). Zenodo. https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.5600535

• Fast
• Free for author
• Free for reader
• Citable, with DOI
• Linked to article

Part 1: Preprinting - uptake

Part 1: Preprinting - uptake

astronomy, mathematics:

• take off in 1990s, currently at 20-35% of article output

​

physics, economics

• take off in 1990s, currently at ~20% of article output

​

technology

• take off in 2007, currently at ~10% of article output

​

psychology, biological sciences

• take off in 2016, currently at 15-20% of article output

​

medicine

• take off in 2018, currently at ~10% of article output

​

most other fields

• slow take off after 2017 and mostly still (way) below 10% of article output

​

based on Dimensions data, checked 20210206 for 1990-2020 and 20220830 for 2021

Source: https://github.com/nicholasmfraser/covid19_preprints

Part 1: Preprints and COVID-19

• Not yet mainstream in most fields, despite ‘Corona-boost’
• Uncertainty over status of preprints vis-à-vis peer reviewed articles
• Sustainability and funding of preprint archives
• Lack of fostering of preprinting by institutions and societies
• Risk of dissemination of pseudoscience despite sanity checks

Part 1: Preprinting - issues

https://zenodo.org/record/5600535

Practical Preprint Guide

Practice

Breakout groups - interactive discussion

Breakouts - 20 minutes

Part 2 - Preprint Peer Review

Journals, preprint servers, and peer review platforms

Different ways of organizing dissemination and evaluation of scientific knowledge

Peer review platforms

Scenario: The extended journal

Scenario: Mixed system

15 PCIs

90 PCI friendly journals��Peer Community Journal

Scenario 3: No journal involved

Preprint peer review

Different ways of organizing dissemination and evaluation of scientific knowledge ?

Breakout groups - interactive discussion

Breakouts - 20 minutes

Slide deck available: ��https://tinyurl.com/OSF2022Preprints

Part 3: Publish Your Reviews

About 168 hours per year spent in peer review of journal articles

​

“By making reviews available only to the small group of individuals directly involved in the peer review process of an article, readers of the article are denied the opportunity to benefit from the information provided by the reviews”

​

“Given the significant efforts made by many reviewers to provide detailed comments on the articles they review, this is a major waste of scientific labor”

Publish Your Reviews

Publish Your Reviews

Journals

Peer review

Acceptance

​

Rejection

Publication

Publish Your Reviews - Benefits

Publish Your Reviews - Supporters

10 publishers/journals (below)

25 other organizations (right)

11 ambassadors

70+ signatories

Publish Your Reviews - Sign the pledge

Join the 70+ colleagues that have already signed the Publish Your Reviews pledge:

​

When a journal invites me to review an article that is available as a preprint, I will publish my review alongside the preprint. I will make sure that the published version of my review does not include the journal name, a recommendation for publication, or other confidential information.

​

http://publishyourreviews.org

Interactive discussion

Participant takeaways, plans, intentions

Participant takeaways, plans, intentions

Participant takeaways, plans, intentions

Participant takeaways, plans, intentions

New Developments in Preprinting and Preprint Review

Jeroen Bosman (UU)�Bianca Kramer (Sesame Open Science)

Jeroen Sondervan (UU)�Ludo Waltman (CWTS)

Slide deck (also) available at: https://tinyurl.com/OSF2022Preprints

NB most images in this slidedeck are clickable!

Open Science Festival, Amsterdam, 1 September 2022