medigraphic.com
ISSN 2307-2113 (Electronic)
Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED)

2019, Number 1

<< Back Next >>

Revista Cubana de Información en Ciencias de la Salud (ACIMED) 2019; 30 (1)

Preprints and preprint servers as academic communication tools

Galbán RE

Language: English
References: 83
Page: 1-27
PDF size: 478.09 Kb.


ABSTRACT

Preprints and preprint servers comprise the articulation of the ultimate and most proximal node to publishing the scientific results in academic journals. Therefore, in this review, the concept, development, advantages and limitations of preprints and preprint servers are analyzed, attending to their main function as publicly available repositories of manuscripts on the way to getting published. Moreover, an analysis of the motor forces contributing to their establishment to communicate research results among scientific communities is given, with their classification (journal, non-journal and mixed servers; subject repositories), as well as debate on the most successful (arXiv) and debated (Biology, Chemistry) servers, preprint formats, and their relationship with information phenomena such as open access, open archiving, digital information certification, information retrieval, and the added value through immediacy in availability and citation in comparison with published articles. Examples of their integration with ongoing communicational processes are discussed, such as migration of editors from journals to preprint servers to channel up manuscripts, open peer review strategies and scientific community engagement. A list of the most relevant preprint servers until 2018, their characteristics, general stats of their preprints and citation counts in Scopus is included.


REFERENCES

  1. Ginsparg P. The global village pioneers. Learn Publ. 2009;21(2):95-100.

  2. Board NE. Nature respects preprint servers. Nature. 2005. Access: 17/3/2005;434:257. Available from: https://www.nature.com/articles/434257b

  3. Graf C, Battisti WP, Bridges D, Bruce-Winkler V, Conaty JM, Ellison JM, et al. Research Methods & Reporting. Good publication practice for communicating company sponsored medical research: the GPP2 guidelines. BMJ. 2009;339:b4330.

  4. Chan L, Cuplinskas D, Eisen M, Friend F, Genova Y, Guédon JC, La Manna M. Budapest Open Access Initiative. Declaraciones del Movimiento Internacional de Acceso Abierto; 2002. Access: 19/8/2017. Available from: http://www.budapestopenaccessinitiative.org/

  5. Luce RE. The open archives initiative: Interoperable, interdisciplinary author self-archiving comes of age. Serials Libr. 2001;40(1-2):173-82.

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

  7. Himmelstein D. The history of publishing delays. Personal Blog; 2016. Access: 16/8/2017. Available from: http://blog.dhimmel.com/history-of-delays/

  8. Gak M. The public sphere: migration of normative principles and the digital construction of transnational ethics. In: Karatzogianni A, Nguyen D, Serafinelli E (Eds.). The digital transformation of the public sphere: Conflict, Migration, Crisis and Culture in Digital Networks. London: Palgrave Macmillan; 2016. p. 11-33.

  9. Cook T. Evidence, memory, identity, and community: Four shifting archival paradigms. Arch Sci. 2013;13(2-3):95-120.

  10. Cobb M. The prehistory of biology preprints: A forgotten experiment from the 1960s. PLOS Biol. 2017;15(11):e2003995.

  11. Kaiser J. How biologists pioneered preprints-with paper and postage. Science. 2017;357(6358):1348.

  12. Rosenfeld A, Wakerling RK, Addis L, Gex R, Taylor RJ. Preprints in particles and fields. SLAC-PUB-0710; 1970.

  13. Ginsparg P. Preprint Déjà Vu. EMBO J. 2016;35(24):2620-5.

  14. Eysenbach G. The impact of preprint servers and electronic publishing on biomedical research. Curr Op Immunol. 2000;12(5):499-503.

  15. Tierney HL, Hammond P, Nordlander P, Weiss PS. Prior publication: Extended abstracts, proceedings articles, preprint servers, and the like. ACS Nano. 2012;6(9):7543-44.

  16. Delamothe T, Smith R, Keller MA, Sack J, Witscher B. Netprints: the next phase in the evolution of biomedical publishing. Brit Med J. 1999;319:1515-6.

  17. Keller A. Future Development of Electronic Journals: a Delphi Survey. Electron Libr. 2001;19(6):383-96.

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

  19. Gopalan PK, Blei DM. Efficient discovery of overlapping communities in massive networks. EE.UU.: Proc Nat Acad Sci. 2013;110(36):14534-9.

  20. SHERPA/RoMEO. RoMEO Statistics. RoMEO; 2018. Access: 24/10/2018. Available from: http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/statistics.php?la=en&fIDnum=|&mode=simple

  21. Packer A, Santos S, Meneghini R. SciELO Preprints on the way. SciELO in Perspective. Blog SciELO. 2017. Access: 15/8/2018. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2017/02/22/scielo-preprints-on-the-way/

  22. PKP and SciELO announce development of open source Preprint Server system. SciELO in Perspective. 2018. Access: 24/10/2018. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2018/09/21/pkp-and-scielo-announce-development-of-open-source-preprint-server-system/

  23. Barroga EF. Cascading peer review for open-access publishing. Eur Sci Ed. 2013;39(4):90-1.

  24. Kovanis M, Trinquart L, Ravaud P, Porcher R. Evaluating alternative systems of peer review: a large-scale agent-based modelling approach to scientific publication. Scientometrics. 2017;113;651-71.

  25. Till JE. Peer review in a post-eprints world: a proposal. J Med Internet Res. 2000;2(3):E14.

  26. Barsh GS, Bergman CM, Brown CD, Singh ND, Copenhaver GP. Bringing PLOS Genetics Editors to Preprint Servers. PLOS Genetics. 2016;12(12):e1006448.

  27. PLOS. Power to the Preprint: An Update. PLOS; 2018. Access: 26/10/2018. Available from: https://blogs.plos.org/plos/2018/09/power-to-the-preprint-an-update/.

  28. Brown C. The role of electronic preprints in chemical communication: Analysis of citation, usage, and acceptance in the journal literature. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2003;54(5):362-71.

  29. Li X, Thelwall M, Kousha K. The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication. Aslib J Inf Manage. 2015;67(6):614-35.

  30. Relman AS. The Ingelfinger’s rule. New Engl J Med. 1981;305:824-6.

  31. Voosen P. Chemists to get preprint server of their own American Chemical Society launches ChemRxiv despite dubious precedents. Science. 2016;353(6301):740.

  32. Cleyle S, Sitas A. CDSware CERN Document Server Software). Library Hi Tech. 2006;24(3):420-9.

  33. Pepe A, Baron T, Gracco M, Le Meur JY, Robinson N, Simko T, Vesely M. CERN Document Server Software: The integrated digital library. CERN-OPEN; 2006.

  34. Giles J. Preprint server seeks way to halt plagiarists. Nature. 2003;426(6962):7.

  35. Town WG, Vickery BA, Kuras J, Weeks JR. Chemical e-journals, chemical e-preprints. Online Inf Rev. 2002;26(3):164-71.

  36. Garner J, Horwood L, Sullivan S. The place of eprints in scholarly information delivery. Online Inf Rev. 2001;25(4):250-6.

  37. Linden DJ. Preprint servers and the Journal of Neurophysiology. J Neurophysiol. 2009;102(5):2577.

  38. Miranda GF, Ginestet J. The attitude of pharmaceutical industry research scientists to browsing and publishing on internet preprint and e-print servers. Drug Inf J. 2002;36(4):831-7.

  39. Vale RD. Accelerating scientific publication in biology. EE.UU.: Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112(44):13439-46.

  40. Garson LR. Communicating original research in chemistry and related sciences. Accounts Chem Res. 2004;37(3):141-8.

  41. Janet EA, Boyett RE, Town WG. Communities on the Web: ChemWeb.com - The World Wide Club for the chemical community. Trends Anal Chem. 1998;17(2):54-8.

  42. Kiessling LL, Fernández LE, Alivisatos AP, Weiss PS. ChemRXiv: A chemistry preprint server. ACS Chem Biol. 2016;11(11):2937.

  43. Warr WA. Evaluation of an experimental chemistry preprint server. J Chem Inf Comp Sci. 2003;43(2):362-73.

  44. Weeks JR, Kuras J, Town WG, Vickery BA. The chemistry preprint server: An experiment in scientific communication. J Chem Inf Comp Sci. 2002;42(3):765.

  45. Hampton K. U.K.’s Medical Research Council encourages use of preprints. UK: Medical Research Council; 2017. Access: 24/10/2018. Available from: http://rescuingbiomedicalresearch.org/blog/u-k-s-medical-research-council-encourages-use-preprints/

  46. NIH. Reporting preprints and other interim research products. NIH: Notice Number NOT-OD-17-050; 2017. Access: 17/4/2017. Available from: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-17-050.html

  47. Anaya J. PrePubMed: A PubMed for preprints. PrePubMed. 2016. Access: 24/10/2018. Available from: http://www.omnesres.com/research/prepubmed/

  48. Preprints Editorial Office. Better visibility for preprints: Inclusion in Europe PMC. Europe PMC; 2018. Access: 24/10/2018]. Available from: https://www.preprints.org/announcement/show/26

  49. Hu C, Zhang Y, Chen G. Exploring a New Model for Preprint Server: A case study of CSPO. J Acad Libr. 2010;36(3):257-62.

  50. Yaokun Z, Nanqiang X. The usage and acceptance of domestic preprint servers in China. Interlend Docum Supply. 2008;36(3):152-7.

  51. Shih I. Indonesian preprint server takes off. Nature. 2018;553(7687):139.

  52. Nordling L. African scientists get their own open-access publishing platform. Nature. 2017. Access: 10/11/2018. Available from: https://www.nature.com/news/african-scientists-get-their-own-open-access-publishing-platform-1.23018

  53. Hurd J, Brown CM, Bartlett J, Krietz P, Paris G. The role of "unpublished" research in the scholarly communication of scientists: digital preprints and bioinformation databases – Sponsored by SIG STI, SIG BIO, SIG PUB. Proceedings of the 65th Asist Annual Meeting; 2002.

  54. Bohle S. Open access: Online repository for lab notebooks. Nature. 2014;506(7487):159.

  55. Shen H. Interactive notebooks: Sharing the code. Nature. 2014;515(7525):151-2.

  56. Candela L, Castelli D, Manghi P, Tani A. Data journals: A survey. J Assoc Inform Science Technol. 2015;66(9):1747-62.

  57. Hunter J. Post-publication peer review: opening up scientific conversation. Front Comput Neurosci. 2012;6:63.

  58. Kirkham J, Moher D. Who and why do researchers opt to publish in post-publication peer review platforms? - findings from a review and survey of F1000 Research. F1000Research. 2018;7:920.

  59. Wildberger N. The arXiv versus ResearchGate. ResearchGate; 2015. Access: 24/8/2018. Available from: https://njwildberger.com/2015/08/30/the-arXiv-versus-researchgate/

  60. Das AK. “Peer review” for scientific manuscripts: Emerging issues, potential threats, and possible remedies. Med J Arm Forc Ind. 2016;72(2):172-4.

  61. Youngen GK. Citation patterns to traditional and electronic preprints in the published literature. Coll Res Libr. 1998;59(5):448-56.

  62. Namiki T, Yamaji K, Kataoka T, Sonehara N. Time stamping preprint and electronic journal server environment. In: Towards a Digital Mathematics Library. Brno: Masaryk University Press; 2011. p. 19-23.

  63. Aquino-Jarquin G, Valencia-Reyes JD, Silva-Carmona A, Granados-Riveron JT. Preprints in biomedicine: alternative or complement to the traditional model of publication? Gac Med Mex. 2018;154(1):87-91.

  64. Johansson MA, Reich NG, Meyers LA, Lipsitch M. Preprints: An underutilized mechanism to accelerate outbreak science. PLOS Med. 2018;15(4):e1002549.

  65. Sheldon T. The impact of preprint on media reporting of science. Lancet. 2018;392(10154):1194.

  66. Fraser J, Polka J. Preprints: safeguard rigour together. Nature. 2018;560(7720):553.

  67. Sarabipour S. Preprints: good for science and public. Nature. 2018;560(7720):553.

  68. Tennant J, Gatto L, Logan C. Preprints: help not hinder journalism. Nature. 2018;560(7720):553.

  69. Iwema CL, LaDue J, Zack A, Chattopadhyay A. search.bioPreprint: a discovery tool for cutting edge, preprint biomedical research articles. F1000Res. 2016;5:1396.

  70. Brown K, Pourquie O. Introducing preLights: preprint highlights, selected by the biological community. Development. 2018;145(4):1.

  71. PREreview. Read and engage with Preprint Reviews. Blog posts; 2018. Access: 24/10/2018. Available from: https://www.prereview.org/

  72. Peralta D. Early 2018 Update: Board Members, Preprints and Special Issues. Chemmedchem. 2018;13(9):861-8.

  73. Bourne PE, Polka JK, Vale RD, Kiley R. Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint submission. PLOS Comput Biol. 2017;13(5):e1005473.

  74. von Schaper E. Preprint wipes millions off CRISPR companies' stocks. Nat Biotechnol. 2018;36(3):211.

  75. Feder T. Experimenting with plagiarism detection on the arXiv. Physics Today. 2007;60(3):30-1.

  76. Larivière V, Sugimoto CR, Macaluso B, Milojevic S, Cronin B, Thelwall M. arXiv e-prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2014;65(6):1157-69.

  77. Moed HF. The effect of "open access" on citation impact: An analysis of arXiv's condensed matter section. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2007;58(13):2047-54.

  78. Catalini C, Lacetera N, Oettl A. The incidence and role of negative citations in science. EE.UU.: Proc Natl Acad Sci. 2015;112(45):13823-6.

  79. Tort AB, Targino ZH, Amaral OB. Rising publication delays inflate journal impact factors. PLOS ONE. 2012;7(12): e53374.

  80. Widener A. Beware of a bogus ChemRxiv. Chem Eng News. 2016;94(46):16.

  81. Sadeghi A, Wilm J, Mayr P, Lange C. Opening scholarly communication in social sciences by connecting collaborative authoring to peer review. arXiv Preprint; 2017 Access: 16/10/2018. Available from: https://arXiv.org/abs/1703.0442.8

  82. Wilm J. OJS/Fidus Writer integration at the Open Science Conference. Fiduswriter; 2017. Access: 17/4/2017. Available from: https://www.fiduswriter.org/2017/03/22/ojs-fidus-writer-integration-osc2017/.

  83. ASAPbio. Creation of a central preprint service for the life sciences. Blog ASAPbio; 2016. Access: 17/4/2017. Available from: http://asapbio.org/summary-of-a-central-preprint-service-model.




2020     |     www.medigraphic.com