“Sharing code through GitHub and preprints through bioRxiv provides researchers with the latest methodologies as early as possible… [and] the scientific community can provide researchers with useful feedback prior to publication.”
AUTHOR OF A unified framework for unconstrained and constrained ordination of microbiome read count data
“Posting a preprint to bioRxiv is extremely beneficial: it gets the results to our community faster so we can accelerate progress. It also clearly provides an initial metric of the interest in and impact of our findings. Coupled with publication in PLOS Pathogens and its rigorous review process, our colleagues can quickly benefit from, and have confidence in, the discoveries and our interpretations.”
“[Posting a preprint to bioRxiv] was an important step for us to gauge the response from our peers before final publication. [Our short report] is a controversial study, not in terms of design or execution, but in terms of interpretation. It was therefore essential that all parties had access to the findings and could give feedback to us as authors.”
“I posted a preprint to bioRxiv when I submitted to PLOS Genetics because I wanted to share our story with scientific community. At submission, I believed we had a complete story that would interest researchers working on various aspects of adhesion biology. I knew that the story would likely develop further after peer review, but I wanted to share the core results with the community.”
“Publishing a preprint is a great way to get feedback as early as possible from the community. We actually improved the final version of our paper not only based on the great reviews we received from the formal peer review process, but also based on the feedback we learned through Twitter, and other channels.”
AUTHOR OF elPrep 4: A multithreaded framework for sequence analysis
Dear subscribers, This month, we share upcoming opportunities to learn, discuss and influence the future of preprints and transparent peer review. Peer review week event: ReimagineReview community call on revealing quality in peer review through increased transparency The theme of this year’s Peer Review Week, “quality in peer review,” should resonate with anyone—author, referee, or…
PLOS encourages authors to submit preprints before or upon submission to their journals, with supportive preprint policies (for example, at PLOS Biology), resources and information about preprints, direct submission options to bioRxiv and medRxiv from several PLOS journals, and preprint editors at PLOS Genetics. Every month, PLOS sends an opt-in email about ‘Articles from preprint…
September 20, 9am PDT, 12pm EDT, 6pm CEST The theme of this year’s Peer Review Week, “quality in peer review,” should resonate with anyone—author, referee, or reader—invested in the process of formal publication. But how can those without a direct window into the peer review process be assured of its quality, both the entire body…
As part of preparations to launch a new journal-independent peer-reviewing platform in collaboration with ASAPbio, EMBO has recently posted a job ad for the position of Managing Editor. EMBO is seeking a highly motivated scientist with broad and international high-level research experience […] The platform will produce high-quality portable peer-reviews that can be directly used…
Dear subscribers, This month, we present opportunities to discuss bias in peer review and share our latest research activities about preprints. We hope you’ll join us at upcoming events and discussions. Discuss bias in peer review with ReimagineReview Scientific peer review is ideally based solely on the merit of the research; in the real world,…
In conversations about preprints in the UK, the question is often raised: ‘are preprints included in REF?’ In brief: yes. This is most likely to be applicable for any research manuscript that is prepared close to the REF2021 submission deadline, and is deemed to be amongst your best work in the current cycle, but which…
Update: this call has passed. See recording of the talks below. Scientific peer review is ideally based solely on the merit of the research; in the real world, however, it is susceptible to the inherent bias of editors and reviewers. Traditional peer review is performed behind closed doors and the resulting lack of data has…
This blogpost is cross-posted from the ScholCommLab blog (Alice Feerackers, July 29 2019) and provides an update on a current research project by two visiting scholars supported by ASAPbio. “For researchers, there is immense pressure to publish in journals that are highly competitive,” says Naomi Penfold, associate director of the scientist-driven nonprofit ASAPbio. “[This, in turn,]…
Dear subscribers, We hope your summer (or winter, depending on your hemisphere) is off to a great start. Here are some highlights from us in the office from the months since our last update: ReimagineReview Earlier this year, we launched a directory of innovative peer review experiments, both inside and outside of the journal system.…
The Center for Scientific Review (CSR), National Institute of Health are working to improve awareness of the NIH policy (NOT-OD-17-050) that encourages citation of preprints in grant applications and reports. In response to feedback submitted by ASAPbio on May 30, Kristin Kramer, Ph.D., at the Office of Communications for the CSR, stated (June 11, 2019):…
Recieve the latest news about ASAPbio, preprints, and open peer review every 1-2 months. Your email will not be shared. Review our privacy policy. Email Address Older issues