Pepe "Enriching Preprints with Provenance, Reproducibility, and Trustworthiness"
•Download as PPTX, PDF•
0 likes•376 views
This presentation was provided by Alberto Pepe of Authorea, during the NISO hot topic event "Preprints." The virtual conference was held on April 21, 2021.
Recommended
Recommended
More Related Content
What's hot
What's hot (20)
Similar to Pepe "Enriching Preprints with Provenance, Reproducibility, and Trustworthiness"
Similar to Pepe "Enriching Preprints with Provenance, Reproducibility, and Trustworthiness" (20)
More from National Information Standards Organization (NISO)
More from National Information Standards Organization (NISO) (20)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Pepe "Enriching Preprints with Provenance, Reproducibility, and Trustworthiness"
- 1. Enriching Preprints with Provenance, Reproducibility, and Trustworthiness Alberto Pepe | Senior Director of Strategy and Innovation
- 2. Alberto Pepe Senior Director of Strategy and Innovation Former researcher with 30+ publications in scholarly communication, information science, computational astrophysics. First preprint in 2006!
- 4. In 2020, for each peer reviewed publication about COVID-19, a preprint was posted 10.6084/m9.figshare.12033672.v18 Preprinting stats (2020)
- 5. It’s a great reminder of why preprints are a reason to be cheerful. Disruption isn’t comfortable, and it takes a lot of adjustment. But it can, sometimes, lead to valuable transformations. -Hilda Bastian I’m beginning to see the issue with preprints. Some are absolutely junk science that would never get into a journal any of us heard of, yet are widely used to support theories about how to treat patients with deadly diseases -Venk Murthy
- 6. • Fast and wide dissemination • No wait time, no paywalls • Record of priority with DOI • Rapid evaluation of results, community feedback • No “black box” of peer review • Preprints get cited, i.e. science moving faster! • Perception of low quality • Potential misuse by media, journalists and the public • Inconsistent preprint policies across journals and publishers Challenges Benefits
- 7. 1 Indicators of quality, value, provenance, and trustworthiness
- 11. Under Review in action 2 When manuscript is sent to reviewers, it is ingested and posted with DOI 1 Author opts in to Under Review when submitting manuscript 3 Status automatically updated as manuscript goes through review 4 Paper published, automatic link toVersion of Record assigned
- 12. Health Sciences Allergy International Journal of Obstetrics and Gynecology British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology British Journal of Pharmacology Clinical Case Reports Clinical Otolaryngology Computational and Systems Oncology Echocardiography Influenza and other respiratory viruses International Journal of Clinical Practice Journal of Cardiac Surgery Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice Pediatric Allergy and Immunology Pediatric Blood & Cancer Pediatric Pulmonology Transboundary and Emerging Diseases Life Sciences Advanced Genetics Biotechnology Journal Biotechnology and Bioengineering Clinical & Experimental Immunology Ecology and Evolution Ecology Letters Human Mutation Hydrological Processes Land Degradation & Development Microbiology Open Natural Sciences Molecular Ecology Resources Molecular Ecology Plant, Cell & Environment PROTEINS: Structure, Function, and Bioinformatics Physical Sciences AIChE Journal Applied AI Letters Engineering Reports Fatigue & Fracture of Engineering International Journal of Quantum Chemistry Journal of the American Oil Chemists' Society Materials & Structures Mathematical Methods in the Applied Sciences Natural Sciences Ecohydrology River Research and Applications In 2020: 11K preprints were posted via Under Review (1.5k aboutCOVID-19) 45 participating journals
- 17. 2 Reproducibility: Using preprints to disseminate data, code, visualizations
- 23. Thank you. Questions? Alberto Pepe | @albertopepe | alberto@authorea.com
Editor's Notes
- A
- Wiley strongly supports the early and open sharing of preprints before (or simultaneous with) submission to a journal. Already, 85% of the journals Wiley publishes will consider publishing manuscripts that have been submitted to a preprint server. We updated our preprint policy in late 2019 to more fully support researchers who want to preprint (no longer differentiating between non-commercial and commercial preprint servers), and the Wiley policy recommendation is that journals should welcome submission of preprints irrespective of where those preprints have been posted. We think preprints work better with publishers and journals involved, and that preprints will continue to complement traditional journal publishing, adding speed, openness, and faster feedback for researchers.
- But things changed with COVID. Significantly. The early, rapid dissemination that preprints provide has been at the forefront of the COVID pandemic. At a time when literally every day means more lives lost, the research world has moved faster than many would have suspected possible, producing an absolutely staggering level of research output. According to Dimensions, in 2020 there were 205,909 publications, 38,827 preprints, 7619 clinical trials, 9,309 datasets, 1,919 patents, 5,025 policy documents, and 4,237 grants related to COVID-19. In particular in the early part of the year, preprints were rapidly established as a key part of COVID-19 research efforts, and in the early stages of the pandemic in May, preprints accounted for one quarter of research output. The figure shown here is from a github repository that has helpful visualizations of COVID preprints over time. From this you can see that across a wide number of preprint servers, at periods there were hundreds of COVID preprints posted PER DAY. In the last year, journals and research communities have responded with unprecedented and most likely unsustainable levels of rapid peer review and rapid publication – but perhaps the rise in adoption of preprinting might alleviate some of the pressures on the already overstrained peer review system moving forward.
- But things changed with COVID. Significantly. The early, rapid dissemination that preprints provide has been at the forefront of the COVID pandemic. At a time when literally every day means more lives lost, the research world has moved faster than many would have suspected possible, producing an absolutely staggering level of research output. According to Dimensions, in 2020 there were 205,909 publications, 38,827 preprints, 7619 clinical trials, 9,309 datasets, 1,919 patents, 5,025 policy documents, and 4,237 grants related to COVID-19. In particular in the early part of the year, preprints were rapidly established as a key part of COVID-19 research efforts, and in the early stages of the pandemic in May, preprints accounted for one quarter of research output. The figure shown here is from a github repository that has helpful visualizations of COVID preprints over time. From this you can see that across a wide number of preprint servers, at periods there were hundreds of COVID preprints posted PER DAY. In the last year, journals and research communities have responded with unprecedented and most likely unsustainable levels of rapid peer review and rapid publication – but perhaps the rise in adoption of preprinting might alleviate some of the pressures on the already overstrained peer review system moving forward.
- Building on the idea of rapid sharing, the explosion of preprints on COVID-19 research has also spurred a lot of debate around the need for fast vs. sure, or the inherent tension between rapid dissemination and rigorous quality control needed for proper peer review. Much of that debate has occurred on Twitter, popular science blogs, and in the lay media. And, there have been some highly publicized retractions and high-profile withdrawals (on preprint servers and in peer-reviewed publications), like the Santa Clara seroprevalence and hydroxychloroquine study capers. Concerns expressed about the “infodemic” range from the spread of misinformation to fears about the complete undermining of public understanding and trust in science. It’s true that preprints open the box on science, and science is messy. And in the context of a plague, preprints are now receiving a significant amount of global attention. In fact, preliminary (PEER-REVIEWED) research shows that “because of the speed of their release, preprints—rather than peer-reviewed literature in the same topic area—might be driving discourse related to the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak.” All of this science at hyper speed, which then immediately makes its way into the public discourse and impacts public health policy makes it very high stakes. I am pro-preprint, and my belief is that preprints pose no more threat to the public than peer-reviewed articles – as there are many cases of bad science making it through poor or incomplete peer review. Importantly, for all the breaking research on COVID (both preprint and peer reviewed), we need to remember that much of it will turn out to be unreliable or wrong as the science continues to build on itself over time. That said, preprints do need to be carefully caveated, and we really need to raise the media’s and the public’s understanding of what a preprint is and is not, and what peer review is and does.
- Wiley strongly supports the early and open sharing of preprints before (or simultaneous with) submission to a journal. Already, 85% of the journals Wiley publishes will consider publishing manuscripts that have been submitted to a preprint server. We updated our preprint policy in late 2019 to more fully support researchers who want to preprint (no longer differentiating between non-commercial and commercial preprint servers), and the Wiley policy recommendation is that journals should welcome submission of preprints irrespective of where those preprints have been posted. We think preprints work better with publishers and journals involved, and that preprints will continue to complement traditional journal publishing, adding speed, openness, and faster feedback for researchers.
- Wiley strongly supports the early and open sharing of preprints before (or simultaneous with) submission to a journal. Already, 85% of the journals Wiley publishes will consider publishing manuscripts that have been submitted to a preprint server. We updated our preprint policy in late 2019 to more fully support researchers who want to preprint (no longer differentiating between non-commercial and commercial preprint servers), and the Wiley policy recommendation is that journals should welcome submission of preprints irrespective of where those preprints have been posted. We think preprints work better with publishers and journals involved, and that preprints will continue to complement traditional journal publishing, adding speed, openness, and faster feedback for researchers.
- Building on the idea of rapid sharing, the explosion of preprints on COVID-19 research has also spurred a lot of debate around the need for fast vs. sure, or the inherent tension between rapid dissemination and rigorous quality control needed for proper peer review. Much of that debate has occurred on Twitter, popular science blogs, and in the lay media. And, there have been some highly publicized retractions and high-profile withdrawals (on preprint servers and in peer-reviewed publications), like the Santa Clara seroprevalence and hydroxychloroquine study capers. Concerns expressed about the “infodemic” range from the spread of misinformation to fears about the complete undermining of public understanding and trust in science. It’s true that preprints open the box on science, and science is messy. And in the context of a plague, preprints are now receiving a significant amount of global attention. In fact, preliminary (PEER-REVIEWED) research shows that “because of the speed of their release, preprints—rather than peer-reviewed literature in the same topic area—might be driving discourse related to the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak.” All of this science at hyper speed, which then immediately makes its way into the public discourse and impacts public health policy makes it very high stakes. I am pro-preprint, and my belief is that preprints pose no more threat to the public than peer-reviewed articles – as there are many cases of bad science making it through poor or incomplete peer review. Importantly, for all the breaking research on COVID (both preprint and peer reviewed), we need to remember that much of it will turn out to be unreliable or wrong as the science continues to build on itself over time. That said, preprints do need to be carefully caveated, and we really need to raise the media’s and the public’s understanding of what a preprint is and is not, and what peer review is and does.
- Building on the idea of rapid sharing, the explosion of preprints on COVID-19 research has also spurred a lot of debate around the need for fast vs. sure, or the inherent tension between rapid dissemination and rigorous quality control needed for proper peer review. Much of that debate has occurred on Twitter, popular science blogs, and in the lay media. And, there have been some highly publicized retractions and high-profile withdrawals (on preprint servers and in peer-reviewed publications), like the Santa Clara seroprevalence and hydroxychloroquine study capers. Concerns expressed about the “infodemic” range from the spread of misinformation to fears about the complete undermining of public understanding and trust in science. It’s true that preprints open the box on science, and science is messy. And in the context of a plague, preprints are now receiving a significant amount of global attention. In fact, preliminary (PEER-REVIEWED) research shows that “because of the speed of their release, preprints—rather than peer-reviewed literature in the same topic area—might be driving discourse related to the ongoing COVID-19 outbreak.” All of this science at hyper speed, which then immediately makes its way into the public discourse and impacts public health policy makes it very high stakes. I am pro-preprint, and my belief is that preprints pose no more threat to the public than peer-reviewed articles – as there are many cases of bad science making it through poor or incomplete peer review. Importantly, for all the breaking research on COVID (both preprint and peer reviewed), we need to remember that much of it will turn out to be unreliable or wrong as the science continues to build on itself over time. That said, preprints do need to be carefully caveated, and we really need to raise the media’s and the public’s understanding of what a preprint is and is not, and what peer review is and does.
- Wiley strongly supports the early and open sharing of preprints before (or simultaneous with) submission to a journal. Already, 85% of the journals Wiley publishes will consider publishing manuscripts that have been submitted to a preprint server. We updated our preprint policy in late 2019 to more fully support researchers who want to preprint (no longer differentiating between non-commercial and commercial preprint servers), and the Wiley policy recommendation is that journals should welcome submission of preprints irrespective of where those preprints have been posted. We think preprints work better with publishers and journals involved, and that preprints will continue to complement traditional journal publishing, adding speed, openness, and faster feedback for researchers.
- Wiley strongly supports the early and open sharing of preprints before (or simultaneous with) submission to a journal. Already, 85% of the journals Wiley publishes will consider publishing manuscripts that have been submitted to a preprint server. We updated our preprint policy in late 2019 to more fully support researchers who want to preprint (no longer differentiating between non-commercial and commercial preprint servers), and the Wiley policy recommendation is that journals should welcome submission of preprints irrespective of where those preprints have been posted. We think preprints work better with publishers and journals involved, and that preprints will continue to complement traditional journal publishing, adding speed, openness, and faster feedback for researchers.
- Wiley strongly supports the early and open sharing of preprints before (or simultaneous with) submission to a journal. Already, 85% of the journals Wiley publishes will consider publishing manuscripts that have been submitted to a preprint server. We updated our preprint policy in late 2019 to more fully support researchers who want to preprint (no longer differentiating between non-commercial and commercial preprint servers), and the Wiley policy recommendation is that journals should welcome submission of preprints irrespective of where those preprints have been posted. We think preprints work better with publishers and journals involved, and that preprints will continue to complement traditional journal publishing, adding speed, openness, and faster feedback for researchers.
- A
- Note that the preprint was updated with a link to the version of record automatically.
- Note that the preprint was updated with a link to the version of record automatically.
- Note that the preprint was updated with a link to the version of record automatically.
- A