Author Archives: Jessica Polka

RFA

May 10, 2017 update: ASAPbio has announced a four-month suspension of the RFA process to reassess the preprint ecosystem and community needs.

ASAPbio is releasing a Request for Applications for the development of a Central Service (provisional name) for preprints in the life sciences issued by ASAPbio. This Request is open to all prospective bidders, and we encourage responses from interested parties able to deliver the services described below. For a concise description of the goals of this project, please see our blog post entitled The Benefits of a “Central Service” for Biology Preprints. Proposals are due on April 30, 2017.

 

 

Principles for establishing a Central Service for Preprints: a statement from a consortium of funders

At the ASAPbio Funders’ Workshop, representatives from a number of funding agencies asked ASAPbio to “develop a proposal describing the governance, infrastructure and standards desired for a preprint service that represents the views of the broadest number of stakeholders.” Following iterative discussions about the technical and organizational aspects of such a project, ASAPbio is now positioned to issue an RFA for the development of a “Central Service” for preprints. To guide this effort, a group of funders have independently formulated the following principles that will shape the Central Service.

The funders are interested in getting additional funding bodies and research performing organizations to endorse these Principles. If you represent such an agency and are interested in signing on to these principles (or would like to discuss this matter), please contact Robert Kiley, Development Lead, Open Research at the Wellcome Trust (r.kiley@wellcome.ac.uk.)

Continue reading

Societies clarify positions on preprints in grants

Following increased interest in may scientific societies’ positions on the use of preprints in NIH grant applications, several societies have released statements providing their perspectives.

ASCB

The ASCB leadership, after careful consideration, believes preprints should be able to be included in grant applications and referenced in NIH progress reports, with the proper references so they are not confused with peer reviewed published papers. In short, the pace of science is too fast and the process of publication too slow to ignore preprints.

American Society for Microbiology (ASM)

ASM also supports the proposal that NIH allow preprints to be included in grant applications and progress reports, provided they are listed separately from peer-reviewed journal publications, given that they serve different purposes and hold different status.

Genetics Society of America (GSA)

American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB)

While the ASBMB doesn’t oppose preprints being included in grant applications, some members do have concerns about how preprints will be used and whether they will increase the burden on grant reviewers.

ASAPbio newsletter vol 6 – One quick action this week to support preprints

Dear subscribers,

We need your help for an urgent action this week.

The NIH released a RFI (request for information) on “including preprints and interim research products in the NIH applications and reports.”  ASAPbio, and many individual scientists, responded with arguments in favor of providing scientists with the option, not requirement, of citing preprints in NIH applications/reports as public evidence of their most recent work and productivity. Several other scientific societies (including Wellcome Trust, MRC, HFSP, Simons Foundation, and the Helmsley Trust) have already implemented new policies on preprint citation in grants in the last 6 months.

FASEB, a scientific society claiming to be the voice of 125,000 scientists, issued a strong negative response to the RFI on allowing preprints to be used in NIH grant review.  We, junior and senior scientists of the ASAPbio Board of Directors, feel that there are many deeply problematic issues with FASEB’s arguments including 1) an unfamiliarity with preprints and even an articulation of incorrect information, 2) a lack of transparency of how they derived their decision, and 3) a view that there is “no need to read” original scientific papers, which we feel is not the type of culture that the funding agencies should foster in order to promote excellence in grant review.

Because FASEB claims to speak for many societies and many scientists, their letter (signed only by the FASEB President) could be given disproportionate weight by the NIH (for a past historical example of how societies undermined a biology preprint server in 1999, see the open access version of this article).  ASAPbio therefore has written this detailed response to FASEB, which will be sent to FASEB and the NIH.

We are also collecting signatures of scientists who support the option to cite preprints in NIH grant applications and reports until January 23, 2017.  Please take 1 minute to sign your name here if you agree that the NIH should allow the option of citing preprints in grant applications and reports.  These signatures will be sent to the NIH.

Please pass along this message or use your social networks to contact as many of your friends and colleagues as possible.

Thank you for your help!

ASAPbio response to FASEB’s statement on the NIH RFI on preprints

1/19/2017 update: We will close the signature drive at 9pm EST on Sunday, 1/22/2017.

Summary

The NIH released a RFI (request for information) on “including preprints and interim research products in the NIH applications and reports.”  ASAPbio, and many individual scientists, responded with arguments in favor of providing scientists with the option, not requirement, of citing preprints in NIH applications/reports as public evidence of their most recent work and productivity. FASEB, a scientific society claiming to be the voice of 125,000 scientists, issued a strong negative response to allowing preprints to be used in NIH grant review.  We, junior and senior scientists of the ASAPbio Board of Directors feel that there are many deeply problematic issues with FASEB’s arguments including 1) an unfamiliarity with preprints and even an articulation of incorrect information, 2) a lack of transparency of how they derived their decision, and 3) a view that there is “no need to read” original scientific papers, which we feel is not the type of culture that the funding agencies should foster in order to promote excellence in grant review. Because FASEB claims to speak for many societies and many scientists, their letter (signed only by the FASEB President) could be given disproportionate weight by the NIH (for a past historical example, see this article).  ASAPbio therefore has written this detailed response to FASEB (see below). We are also collecting signatures of scientists who support the option to cite preprints in NIH grant applications and reports here until 9pm EST on 1/22/2017.

Continue reading