Identification and categorization of iterative preprints in the life sciences

  1. Lonni Besançon
  2. Sheiliza Carmali
  3. Ashley A. Castelloe
  4. Roseline Dzekem Dine
  5. Debraj Manna
  6. Sudeepa Nandi
  7. Jessica Polka
  8. Iratxe Puebla
  9. Rebecca Shelley
  10. Ioannis Tsagakis
  11. Jonathon A Coates

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

Preprints, manuscripts posted online prior to journal-organized peer-review, are an alternative to the traditional, slow, expensive, and inequitable journal publication system. They enable earlier sharing of research outcomes and can even be used to obtain early feedback on work in progress. We aim to identify such alternative uses of preprints, including works-in-progress that are deposited and updated as preprints (iterative preprints). We rely first on a computational approach to identify alternative preprints that we then qualitatively assess. We aim to communicate our approach and results to the community as an iterative preprint itself. In this version, we present our computational approach and initial exploratory results as we seek feedback on our methodology.

Article activity feed

  1. PREreview

    This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a Structured PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/10155712.

    Does the introduction explain the objective of the research presented in the preprint? Yes
    Are the methods well-suited for this research? Somewhat appropriate
    Are the conclusions supported by the data? Neither supported nor unsupported
    Are the data presentations, including visualizations, well-suited to represent the data? Neither appropriate and clear nor inappropriate and unclear
    How clearly do the authors discuss, explain, and interpret their findings and potential next steps for the research? Somewhat clearly
    Is the preprint likely to advance academic knowledge? Moderately likely
    Would it benefit from language editing? No
    Would you recommend this preprint to others? Yes, but it needs to be improved
    Is it ready for attention from an editor, publisher or broader audience? No, it needs a major revision

    Competing interests

    The author declares that they have no competing interests.

  2. Version published to 10.31219/osf.io/sqeg4 on OSF Preprints