Preprint abstracts should be open: why we joined the I4OA stakeholder group

We’ve proud to join the stakeholder group of the Initiative for Open Abstracts, a sister project to Initiative for Open Citations. Making abstracts openly available and machine-readable helps readers discover relevant research. For more on why this is important, see this explainer.  Open abstracts are important for preprints as well as published journal articles. The…

The economic argument for preprints

Preprinting helps researchers and the scientific enterprise as a whole by providing increased visibility and access to early results and facilitating feedback that improves papers. While the benefits can be felt on an individual level by readers and authors, the advantages compound at the systemic level to increase the pace and efficiency of discovery.  The…

Join the #PreprintReviewChallenge

#PreprintReviewChallenge – 22 September 2020 On September 22 ASAPbio is hosting the #PreprintReviewChallenge as part of Peer Review Week 2020. In a live session hosted online, we will get together to write constructive comments and reviews on preprints, with the aim to develop the largest collection to date of public commentary on preprinted research in…

Survey overview

Preprint authors optimistic about benefits: preliminary results from the #bioPreprints2020 survey

With contributions from Kathryn Funk, Alice Meadows, Alex Mendonça, Oya Rieger, and Sowmya Swaminathan After our #bioPreprints2020 meeting, a working group of attendees set out to understand how to best increase awareness about preprints among varied groups of stakeholders (such as librarians, journalists, publishers, funders, research administrators, students, clinicians, and more). To accomplish this goal,…

Comparing journal-independent review services

Preprinting not only accelerates the dissemination of science, but also enables early feedback from a broad community. Therefore, it’s no surprise that there are many innovative projects offering feedback, commentary, and peer reviews on preprints. Such feedback can range from the informal (tweets, comments, annotations, or a simple endorsement) to the formal (an editor-organized process…

Preprint stickers on a table with a post-it note that says "I screen preprints"

Open for feedback: #bioPreprints2020 meeting report

In late January, ASAPbio, in collaboration with EMBL-EBI and Ithaka S+R, hosted the #bioPreprints2020 workshop to improve the discoverability, reuse, and interoperability of preprints in the life and biomedical sciences. After the meeting, attendees formed working groups to establish draft recommendations for preprint metadata, withdrawal and removal definitions, data availability statements, versioning, and surfacing review…

Image advertising a 5-minute survey: your views on preprints, for researchers, readers, funders, journal editors, and more

What are the benefits and challenges of preprints? Share your views

While the use of preprints has increased over the last years, preprint awareness and attitudes vary widely across research communities and among stakeholders in research communication. Stakeholders interact with preprints to varying degrees, via different channels and for different purposes; a better understanding of what benefits and concerns the different stakeholders associate with preprints is…

Preprint FAQ refresh

When we first launched our Preprint FAQ in 2016, the biology preprint landscape looked dramatically different from its present form, both in terms of its usage and prominence among researchers as well as its integration into scholarly communication workflows. While we’ve made periodic updates, the whole package was due for a refresh. We’ve been honored…

Transpose data reused by Clarivate to increase awareness of journal peer review and preprinting policies

Transpose is a community database of journal policies on peer review and preprinting developed with major contributions from ASAPbio. Launched almost a year ago after a sprint at the 2018 Scholarly Communications Institute, Transpose includes information on whether peer review is blinded, transparency of reviewer identities and reports, co-reviewing policies, versions of papers that can…

Discouraging citations to predatory journals could be counterproductive

Predatory journals, as defined by COPE in a thoughtful discussion document, are those that operate for profit in a “deceptive or fraudulent way and without any regard for quality assurance.” These journals undermine trust in science by enabling the dissemination of flawed work under false banners of quality. Recently, ICMJE and COPE made recommendations to…