Researchers support preprints and open access publishing, but with reservations: A questionnaire survey of MBSJ members.

Since the 1990s, journals have become increasingly online and open access. In fact, about 50% of articles published in 2021 were open access. The use of preprints (i.e., non-peer-reviewed articles) has also increased. However, there is limited awareness of these concepts among academics. Therefore, we conducted a questionnaire-based survey among members of the Molecular Biology Society of Japan. The survey was conducted between September 2022 and October 2022, with 633 respondents, 500 of whom (79.0%) were faculty members. In total, 478 (76.6%) respondents had published articles as open access, and 571 (91.5%) wanted to publish their articles in open access. Although 540 (86.5%) respondents knew about preprints, only 183 (33.9%) had posted preprints before. In the open-ended section of the questionnaire survey, several comments were made about the cost burdens associated with open access and the difficulty of how academic preprints are handled. Although open access is widespread, and recognition of preprints is increasing, some issues remain that need to be addressed. Academic and institutional support, and transformative agreement may help reduce the cost burden. Guidelines for handling preprints in academia are also important for responding to changes in the research environment.

Counterpoint: Preprints and the Future of Scientific Publishing-In Favor of Relevance.

Peer-reviewed journals provide an invaluable but inadequate vehicle for scientific communication. Preprints are now an essential complement to peer-reviewed publications. Eschewing preprints will slow scientific progress and reduce the public health impact of epidemiologic research. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic highlighted long-standing limitations of the peer-review process. Preprint servers, such as bioRxiv and medRxiv, served as crucial venues to rapidly disseminate research and provide detailed backup to sound-bite science that is often communicated through the popular press or social media. The major criticisms of preprints arise from an unjustified optimism about peer review. Peer review provides highly imperfect sorting and curation of research and only modest improvements in research conduct or presentation for most individual papers. The advantages of peer review come at the expense of months to years of delay in sharing research methods or results. For time-sensitive evidence, these delays can lead to important missteps and ill-advised policies. Even with research that is not intrinsically urgent, preprints expedite debate, expand engagement, and accelerate progress. The risk that poor-quality papers will have undue influence because they are posted on a preprint server is low. If epidemiology aims to deliver evidence relevant for public health, we need to embrace strategic uses of preprint servers.

Point: Should AJE Allow Submissions of Manuscripts That Have Been Previously Posted on Preprint Servers and Received Media Attention?

In weighing the question of whether AJE should accept preprints that have received press coverage, we need to keep in mind 3 sets of interests: the public interest, the publisher's interest, and the author's interest. During public health emergencies, such as a pandemic, the author's interests (rapid communication of scientific findings to the public) are aligned with the public interest (learning about life-saving information as early as possible). However, the interests of different parties are not always aligned. In most cases, preprinted articles do not concern matters of life or death. Widespread dissemination of studies via preprint services conflicts with the journal editor's interest in delivering fresh, original content. Dissemination of study results prior to peer review can occasionally backfire and cause unintended harm if the findings turn out to be false.

Open Science in eating disorders: Using current evidence to inspire a plan for increasing the transparency of our research.

OBJECTIVE: There is increasing consensus that open science practices improve the transparency and quality of clinical science. However, several barriers impede the implementation of these practices at the individual, institutional, and field levels; understanding and addressing these barriers is critical to promoting targeted efforts in increasing effective uptake of open science. METHODS: Within this research forum, we drew from publicly available online information sources to identify initial characterizations of researchers engaged in several types of open science practices in the field of eating disorders. We use these observations to discuss potential barriers and recommendations for next steps in the promotion of these practices. RESULTS: Data from online open science repositories suggest that individuals using these publishing approaches with pre-prints and articles with eating-disorder-relevant content are predominantly non-male gender identifying, early to mid-career stage, and are more likely to be European-, United States-, or Canada-based. DISCUSSION: We outline recommendations for tangible ways that the eating disorder field can support broad, increased uptake of open science practices, including supporting initiatives to increase knowledge and correct misconceptions; and prioritizing the development and accessibility of open science resources. PUBLIC SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The use of open science practices has the potential to increase the transparency and quality of clinical science. This Forum uses publicly sourced online data to characterize researchers engaged in open science practices in the field of eating disorders. These observations provide an important framework from which to discuss potential barriers to open science and recommendations for next steps in the promotion of these practices.

Five Years of ChemRxiv: Where We Are and Where We Go From Here.

ChemRxiv was launched on August 15, 2017 to provide researchers in chemistry and related fields a home for the immediate sharing of their latest research. In the past five years, ChemRxiv has grown into the premier preprint server for the chemical sciences, with a global audience and a wide array of scholarly content that helps advance science more rapidly. On the service's fifth anniversary, we would like to reflect on the past five years and take a look at what is next for ChemRxiv.

Pre2Pub-Tracking the Path From Preprint to Journal Article: Algorithm Development and Validation.

BACKGROUND: The current COVID-19 crisis underscores the importance of preprints, as they allow for rapid communication of research results without delay in review. To fully integrate this type of publication into library information systems, we developed preview: a publicly available, central search engine for COVID-19-related preprints, which clearly distinguishes this source from peer-reviewed publications. The relationship between the preprint version and its corresponding journal version should be stored as metadata in both versions so that duplicates can be easily identified and information overload for researchers is reduced. OBJECTIVE: In this work, we investigated the extent to which the relationship information between preprint and corresponding journal publication is present in the published metadata, how it can be further completed, and how it can be used in preVIEW to identify already republished preprints and filter those duplicates in search results. METHODS: We first analyzed the information content available at the preprint servers themselves and the information that can be retrieved via Crossref. Moreover, we developed the algorithm Pre2Pub to find the corresponding reviewed article for each preprint. We integrated the results of those different resources into our search engine preVIEW, presented the information in the result set overview, and added filter options accordingly. RESULTS: Preprints have found their place in publication workflows; however, the link from a preprint to its corresponding journal publication is not completely covered in the metadata of the preprint servers or in Crossref. Our algorithm Pre2Pub is able to find approximately 16% more related journal articles with a precision of 99.27%. We also integrate this information in a transparent way within preVIEW so that researchers can use it in their search. CONCLUSIONS: Relationships between the preprint version and its journal version is valuable information that can help researchers finding only previously unknown information in preprints. As long as there is no transparent and complete way to store this relationship in metadata, the Pre2Pub algorithm is a suitable extension to retrieve this information.

[Challenges for science journalism in the Corona pandemic-some observations about a mediated world event]. / Herausforderungen für den Journalismus über Wissenschaft in der Coronapandemie ­ erste Beobachtungen zu einem Weltereignis.

The mass media has made the SARS-CoV­2 virus a so-called global event. The volume and congruence of the journalistic selection of topics in Germany exceeds that of the already high level of the H1N1 pandemic 2009 many times over. In this discussion article, challenges for journalism that have arisen in reporting on the scientific aspects of the COVID-19 pandemic are described.At the beginning of the pandemic, there was a real epistemic uncertainty due to the lack of established facts. Many editorial offices lacked professional routines for the competent handling of preliminary research results and for the evaluation of scientific reputation of experts. Dealing with scientific articles that had not yet undergone peer review (preprints) became a major challenge. If peer review isn't available, science journalists have to develop new indicators to assess the quality and relevance of a preprint research publication and they need to be better equipped to distinguish valuable scientific contributions from mere "hype."The phenomena observed during pandemic reporting show how essential independent professional science journalism is for the democratic discourse, because only in this way can nonscientific audiences correctly classify truthful and relevant scientific content conveyed and develop informed trust in science.

Scholarly publishing and journal targeting in the time of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic: a cross-sectional survey of rheumatologists and other specialists.

The evolving research landscape in the time of the Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic calls for greater understanding of the perceptions of scholars regarding the current state and future of publishing. An anonymised and validated e-survey featuring 30 questions was circulated among rheumatologists and other specialists over social media to understand preferences while choosing target journals, publishing standards, commercial editing services, preprint archiving, social media and alternative publication activities. Of 108 respondents, a significant proportion were clinicians (68%), researchers (60%) and educators (47%), with median 23 publications and 15 peer-review accomplishments. The respondents were mainly rheumatologists from India, Ukraine and Turkey. While choosing target journals, relevance to their field (69%), PubMed Central archiving (61%) and free publishing (59%) were the major factors. Thirty-nine surveyees (36%) claimed that they often targeted local journals for publishing their research. However, only 18 (17%) perceived their local society journals as trustworthy. Occasional publication in the so-called predatory journals (5, 5%) was reported and obtaining support from commercial editing agencies to improve English and data presentation was not uncommon (23, 21%). The opinion on preprint archiving was disputed; only one-third believed preprints were useful. High-quality peer review (56%), full and immediate open access (46%) and post-publication social media promotion (32%) were identified as key anticipated features of scholarly publishing in the foreseeable future. These perceptions of surveyed scholars call for greater access to free publishing, attention to proper usage of English and editing skills, and a larger role for engagement over social media.

Rise of the Rxivs: How Preprint Servers are Changing the Publishing Process.

Scientific publishing is a complex and time-consuming process. Submitting an article to a journal, waiting for review, and revising can take months or even years. Authors can speed up parts of this process by posting early versions their articles online to gather feedback and improve them prior to submission to a journal. These early versions are referred to as "preprints." Preprints have been common practice in some disciplines for decades, but are a relatively new phenomenon in biology and medicine. This column will provide a brief history of article preprints and their use in different scientific disciplines. It will also discuss the advantages of and problems with preprints. A list of popular preprint servers is also included.

Celebrating 20 Years of Open Access and Innovation at JMIR Publications.

In this 20th anniversary theme issue, we are celebrating how JMIR Publications, an innovative publisher deeply rooted in academia and created by scientists for scientists, pioneered the open access model, is advancing digital health research, is disrupting the scholarly publishing world, and is helping to empower patients. All this has been made possible by the disintermediating power of the internet. And we are not done innovating: Our new series of "superjournals," called JMIRx, will provide a glimpse into what we see as the future and end goal in scholarly publishing: open science. In this model, the vast majority of papers will be published on preprint servers first, with "overlay" journals then competing to peer review and publish peer-reviewed "versions of record" of the best papers.

Preprints in biomedicine: alternative or complement to the traditional model of publication? / Preimpresiones en biomedicina: ¿alternativa o complemento al modelo tradicional de publicación?

The peer-review system has allowed the quality control of the manuscripts submitted for publication to scientific journals for over three centuries. However, due to its relative slowness and other drawbacks, some researchers, mainly in the areas of Physics and Mathematics, started some decades ago to propagate, by electronic means, manuscripts not yet submitted to a journal for formal publication. The dissemination of this practice led to the establishment of permanent repositories like ArXiv, to which preprints can be sent to be published whitou charge, allowing also the search and download of the works they contain with no payment required from the reader. In biomedical sciences, the adoption of the system has been slower than in the exact sciences and previous attempts like e-biomed, Netprints, and Nature Precedings did not prosper. A new generation of repositories like bioRXiv, inspired by ArXiv, seems to enjoy an increasing acceptance among biomedical researchers. Here, we discuss the potential role of this emerging system to establish discovery priority in biomedicine and to improve manuscripts before they are submitted to scientific journals besides other applications which could be implemented in the extent that the model becomes more popular.

La revisión por pares es un sistema que ha permitido el control de calidad de los manuscritos enviados para publicación en revistas científicas durante más de tres siglos. Sin embargo, debido a su relativa lentitud y otras desventajas, algunos investigadores (principalmente en las áreas de la física y las matemáticas) iniciaron hace algunas décadas la difusión electrónica de manuscritos aún no sometidos a una revista de publicación formal. La popularización de esta práctica condujo al establecimiento de repositorios permanentes como ArXiv, a los que es posible enviar preimpresiones de forma gratuita y que a la vez permiten la búsqueda y descarga de los trabajos que contienen sin cargo para el lector. En las ciencias biomédicas la adopción de este sistema ha sido más lenta que en las ciencias exactas e intentos previos como e-biomed, Netprints y Nature Precedings no prosperaron. Una nueva generación de repositorios como bioRXiv, inspirado en ArXiv, parece gozar de una creciente aceptación entre investigadores biomédicos. Aquí discutimos el potencial papel de este sistema emergente para establecer la primicia de descubrimientos en biomedicina y el mejoramiento de manuscritos antes de su sometimiento a revistas científicas, así como para otras aplicaciones que podrían implementarse en la medida en que el modelo se popularice.

The first year of a new era.

What happened when eLife decided to eliminate accept/reject decisions after peer review?

Endorsement of open science practices by dental journals: A meta-research study.

OBJECTIVES: This study evaluates the endorsement of open science practices by dental journals. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a meta-research study that included journals listed in the 2021 Journal Citation Reports under Dentistry. A comprehensive evaluation was performed by accessing journal websites to ascertain the availability of publicly accessible instructions to authors in Portuguese, English, or Spanish. A researcher extracted information from the "Instructions for Authors" section, encompassing the journal's impact factor, mention of any reporting guidelines, details on data sharing, acceptance of articles in preprint format, and information regarding study protocol registration. Descriptive data analysis was conducted using the Stata 14.0 program, and an Open Science Score (OSS) (ranging from 0 to 100 %) was calculated for each journal by considering five open science practices. Pearson's correlation test was conducted to determine the relationship between the OSS score and journal impact factor. RESULTS: Ninety journals were included in the study. Most journals (70 %) indicated the mandatory use of reporting guidelines, while 60 % recommended data sharing. Conversely, 46.7 % did not provide information on study protocol registration, and 44.4 % stipulated them as mandatory for authors. Regarding preprints, 50 % of the journals did not provide any information, but 46.7 % confirmed their acceptance. The mean OSS was 52.9 % (standard deviation 26.2). There was a weak correlation (Pearson's correlation coefficient of 0.221) between the journal impact factor and OSS (P-value=0.036). CONCLUSION: This study found varying degrees of endorsement of open science practices among dental journals. CLINICAL SIGNIFICANCE: Dental practitioners rely on high-quality, evidence-based research for informed decision-making. By assessing the endorsement of open science practices, our study contributes to improving the quality and reliability of dental research, ultimately enhancing the evidence base for clinical practice.

(How) should researchers publicize their research papers before peer review?

News outlets publicize scientific research findings that have not been peer reviewed yet, and they often do it with active contribution by the authors of the unpublished manuscripts. While researchers are aware of the importance of the peer review process and what it means to discuss findings before manuscripts are accepted for publication, the general public is not. It is imperative to ensure that researchers provide reliable scientific knowledge to each other and to the public, as well as to preserve reliance on the scientific process and peer review. For these reasons, researchers should be more cautious in communicating unpublished work to the public and more accurate about the status of the presented scientific information.

[Peer review, preprints and predatory journals. Publication ethics versus publicity applied to medical science]. / Revisión de pares, preprints y revistas depredadoras. ética editorial versus publicidad aplicada a la ciencia médica.

The publication of medical articles has become increasingly complex, linked to multiple factors. It poses difficult problems for both authors and journals themselves. This Editorial addresses current and controversial issues: peer review, preprints as a new way of disseminating knowledge, the growing number of publications without peer review and its variants, and the risks of predatory publications. The article proposes future guidelines as an editorial policy of MEDICINA. The controversy continues, and surely the passage of time will place our proposal in a changing scientific world like knowledge itself.

Challenges and Controversies in Peer Review: JACC Review Topic of the Week.

The process of peer review has been the gold standard for evaluating medical science, but significant pressures from the recent COVID-19 pandemic, new methods of communication, larger amounts of research, and an evolving publication landscape have placed significant pressures on this system. A task force convened by the American College of Cardiology identified the 5 most significant controversies associated with the current peer-review process: the effect of preprints, reviewer blinding, reviewer selection, reviewer incentivization, and publication of peer reviewer comments. Although specific solutions to these issues will vary, regardless of how scientific communication evolves, peer review must remain an essential process for ensuring scientific integrity, timely dissemination of information, and better patient care. In medicine, the peer-review process is crucial because harm can occur if poor-quality data or incorrect conclusions are published. With the dramatic increase in scientific publications and new methods of communication, high-quality peer review is more important now than ever.