medigraphic.com
ISSN 0016-3813 (Print)

2018, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Gac Med Mex 2018; 154 (1)

Preimpresiones en biomedicina: ¿alternativa o complemento al modelo tradicional de publicación?

Aquino-Jarquin G, Valencia-Reyes JM, Silva-Carmona A, Granados-Riverón JT

Language: Spanish
References: 18
Page: 87-91
PDF size: 152.51 Kb.


ABSTRACT

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.


REFERENCES

  1. Spier R. The history of the peer-review process. TRENDS Biotechnol. 2002;20:357-8.

  2. Goldbeck-Wood S. Evidence on peer review - scientific quality control or smokescreen? BMJ. 1999;318:44-5.

  3. Powell K. Does it take too long to publish research? Nature. 2016;530:148-51.

  4. Vale RD. Accelerating scientific publication in biology. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015;112:13439-46.

  5. Fang FC, Steen RG, Casadevall A. Misconduct accounts for the majority of retracted scientific publications. Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2012;109:17028-33.

  6. Berg JM. Preprints for the Life Sciences. Science. 2016;352:899-901.

  7. Homan JM. E-biomed. Bull Med Libr Assoc. 1999;87:485-6.

  8. Delamothe T, Smith R, Keller MA. Netprints: the next phase in the evolution of biomedical publishing. BMJ. 1999;319:1515-6.

  9. Free market science. Nat Cell Biol. 2007;9:721.

  10. Ford E. Open peer review at four STEM journals: an observational overview. Version 2. F1000Res. 2015;4:6.

  11. Callaway E. Biomedical journal and publisher hope to bring preprints to life. Nat Med. 2013;19:512.

  12. Callaway E. Geneticists eye the potential of arXiv. Nature. 2012;488:19.

  13. Callaway E. Preprints come to life. Nature. 2013;503:180.

  14. Greider CW. Regulating telomere length from the inside out: The replication fork model. Genes Dev. 2016;30(13):1483-91.

  15. Krishnan K, Lau B, Ewall G, et al. MECP2 regulates cortical plasticity underlying a learned behavior in adult female mice. Nat Commun. 2017;8:14077.

  16. Vale RD, Hyman AA. Priority of discovery in the life sciences. Elife. 2016;5.

  17. Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Should there be greater use of preprint servers for publishing reports of biomedical science? F1000Research. 2016;5:272.

  18. Crick F. What mad pursuit: a personal view of scientific discovery. Basic Books; 2008.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com