Preprint review and curation

A list by Mark Williams

Interesting articles related to research culture, use of preprints and their review and curation activity.

33 articlesLast updated

Related articles (Labs đŸ§Ș)

Showing page 1 of 2

  1. Mapping the preprint review metadata transfer workflows

    1. Tony Alves
    2. Christopher Erdmann
    3. Emily Esten
    4. Martin Klein
    5. Bianca Kramer
    6. Maria Levchenko
    7. Daisy Nip
    8. Michael Parkin
    9. Iratxe Puebla
    Appears in 1 listLatest version

    Mark Williams

    Part of a wider initiative to encourage wider deposit and sharing of preprint review metadata, this paper is concerned with mapping existing transfer workflows and shows how new communities might adopt a particular method to suit their process of review.

  2. ‘Conditional Acceptance’ (additional experiments required): A scoping review of recent evidence on key aspects of Open Peer Review

    1. Tony Ross-Hellauer
    2. Serge P. J. M. Horbach
    Appears in 1 listLatest version

    Mark Williams

    References in this post https://theconversation.com/the-peer-review-system-no-longer-works-to-guarantee-academic-rigour-a-different-approach-is-needed-244092, suggesting that the process of Open Peer Review is 'too new to understand how it compares with traditional publishing'

  4. Understanding the Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) Model of Scholarly Communication

    1. Katherine S. Corker
    2. Ludo Waltman
    3. Jonathon A Coates
    Appears in 1 listLatest version

    Mark Williams

    An overview of the PRC model and statistics relating to adoption. Sciety represents all organisations and communities offering variants of this model; curating preprints independent of review, community review and curation based on review.

  7. Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science

    1. Michele Avissar-Whiting
    2. Frédérique Belliard
    3. Stefano M. Bertozzi
    4. Amy Brand
    5. Katherine Brown
    6. Géraldine Clément-Stoneham
    7. Stephanie Dawson
    8. Gautam Dey
    9. Daniel Ecer
    10. Scott C. Edmunds
    11. Ashley Farley
    12. Tara D. Fischer
    13. Maryrose Franko
    14. James S. Fraser
    15. Kathryn Funk
    16. Clarisse Ganier
    17. Melissa Harrison
    18. Anna Hatch
    19. Haley Hazlett
    20. Samantha Hindle
    21. Daniel W. Hook
    22. Phil Hurst
    23. Sophien Kamoun
    24. Robert Kiley
    25. Michael M. Lacy
    26. Marcel LaFlamme
    27. Rebecca Lawrence
    28. Thomas Lemberger
    29. Maria Leptin
    30. Elliott Lumb
    31. Catriona J. MacCallum
    32. Christopher Steven Marcum
    33. Gabriele Marinello
    34. Alex Mendonça
    35. Sara Monaco
    36. Kleber Neves
    37. Damian Pattinson
    38. Jessica K. Polka
    39. Iratxe Puebla
    40. Martyn Rittman
    41. Stephen J. Royle
    42. Daniela Saderi
    43. Richard Sever
    44. Kathleen Shearer
    45. John E. Spiro
    46. Bodo Stern
    47. Dario Taraborelli
    48. Ron Vale
    49. Claudia G. Vasquez
    50. Ludo Waltman
    51. Fiona M. Watt
    52. Zara Y. Weinberg
    53. Mark Williams
    Appears in 5 listsLatest version

    Mark Williams

    A paper which the Sciety team supported through surfacing open data regarding the preprint review landscape which can be found via

    https://lookerstudio.google.com/reporting/b09cf3e8-88c7-4928-b639-2c48dc786191/page/p_kr9n81etoc

  8. PReF: describing key Preprint Review Features

    1. Jessica Polka
    2. Iratxe Puebla
    3. Damian Pattinson
    4. Philip Hurst
    5. Gary S. McDowell
    6. Richard Sever
    7. Thomas Lemberger
    8. Michele Avissar-Whiting
    9. Philip N. Cohen
    10. Tony Ross-Hellauer
    11. Gabriel Stein
    12. Kathleen Shearer
    13. Clare Stone
    14. Victoria Tianjing Yan
    Appears in 1 listLatest version

    Mark Williams

    Each group on Sciety has a PReF table that describes their review process. This article details the features of preprint peer review and how they may differ from traditional peer review.

  11. Enabling preprint discovery, evaluation, and analysis with Europe PMC

    1. Mariia Levchenko
    2. Michael Parkin
    3. Johanna McEntyre
    4. Melissa Harrison
    Appears in 1 listLatest version

    Mark Williams

    An outline of how our friends at EuropePMC index preprints and their evaluation activity, which includes reviews from Sciety groups provided via Docmaps. The data shows "As of 4 April 2024 there are 12,209 reviewed preprints in Europe PMC", whereas on Sciety this number is 33,046 evaluated preprints. They cite challenges of; "Distributed access points, Limited metadata, Divergence of practices and standards, Lack of machine-readable status updates" all of which resonate with the work on Sciety and by working together as part of a Preprint Review Metadata working group, we can go some way to overcoming these.

  12. Robustness of evidence reported in preprints during peer review

    1. Lindsay Nelson
    2. Honghan Ye
    3. Anna Schwenn
    4. Shinhyo Lee
    5. Salsabil Arabi
    6. B Ian Hutchins
    Appears in 1 listLatest version

    Mark Williams

    This paper adds to evidence supporting publishing results early through preprinting and dispelling concerns about reliability compared to what are traditionally called "published" papers. The article activity on Sciety shows the versions published to Research Square and to the journal.

    From the discussion of the paper:

    "Overall, articles submitted to preprint servers by researchers, especially on COVID-19, are largely complete versions of similar quality to published papers and can be expected to change little during peer review. "

  13. Preprint review services: Disrupting the scholarly communication landscape?

    1. Susana Oliveira Henriques
    2. Narmin Rzayeva
    3. Stephen Pinfield
    4. Ludo Waltman

    • Curated by MetaROR

      Editorial Assessment

      The authors present a descriptive analysis of preprint review services. The analysis focuses on the services’ relative characteristics and differences in preprint review management. The authors conclude that such services have the potential to improve the traditional peer review process. Two metaresearchers reviewed the article. They note that the background section and literature review are current and appropriate, the methods used to search for preprint servers are generally sound and sufficiently detailed to allow for reproduction, and the discussion related to anonymizing articles and reviews during the review process is useful. The reviewers also offered suggestions for improvement. They point to terminology that could be clarified. They suggest adding URLs for each of the 23 services included in the study. Other suggestions include explaining why overlay journals were excluded, clarifying the limitation related to including only English-language platforms, archiving rawer input data to improve reproducibility, adding details related to the qualitative text analysis, discussing any existing empirical evidence about misconduct as it relates to different models of peer review, and improving field inclusiveness by avoiding conflation of “research” and “scientific research.”

      The reviewers and I agree that the article is a valuable contribution to the metaresearch literature related to peer review processes.

      Handling Editor: Kathryn Zeiler

      Competing interest: I am co-Editor-in-Chief of MetaROR working with Ludo Waltman, a co-author of the article and co-Editor-in-Chief of MetaROR

    Reviewed by MetaROR, PREreview

    4 evaluationsAppears in 4 listsLatest version Latest activity

    Mark Williams

    Preprint review services have the potential to turn peer review into a more transparent and rewarding experience and to improve publishing and peer review workflows.

  15. Trusted Research: a Primer from CPNI

    1. Reproducibility Network
    Appears in 1 listLatest version

    Mark Williams

    Guidance from the UK govt:

    "Trusted Research is there to help you identify and manage reputational, financial, legal and national security risks to your research. It helps you to ensure that all your collaborations have the levels of transparency,assurance and reputational awareness needed for Open Research to thrive"

  16. Preprints: a Primer from UKRN

    1. Manuel Spitschan
    2. Sally Rumsey
    3. Matt Jaquiery
    4. Matteo M Galizzi
    Appears in 1 listLatest version

    Mark Williams

    An article from https://www.ukrn.org/primers/ that describes preprints and the process of uploading them to a chosen preprint server

  18. The Publication Facts Label: Ascertaining a Publication’s Adherence to Scholarly Standards

    1. John Willinsky
    2. Daniel Pimentel
    Appears in 1 listLatest version

    Mark Williams

    This article discusses the

    "development of a Publication Facts Label (modeled on the nutrition facts label appearing on food products). It is designed to accompany journal research articles, and consolidates data for eight scholarly publishing standards, with a goal of informing and educating readers about such standards"

    It is being trialed with OSF publications.

    I came across this whilst reading this post https://oaspa.org/report-from-equity-in-oa-workshop-4-part-2-trust-as-the-new-prestige/ which advocates for transparency in publishing practices to inspire trust over traditional prestige metrics.

  20. Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature

    1. Clarissa F. D. Carneiro
    2. Victor G. S. Queiroz
    3. Thiago C. Moulin
    4. Carlos A. M. Carvalho
    5. Clarissa B. Haas
    6. Danielle RayĂȘe
    7. David E. Henshall
    8. Evandro A. De-Souza
    9. Felippe E. Amorim
    10. FlĂĄvia Z. Boos
    11. Gerson D. Guercio
    12. Igor R. Costa
    13. Karina L. Hajdu
    14. Lieve van Egmond
    15. Martin ModrĂĄk
    16. Pedro B. Tan
    17. Richard J. Abdill
    18. Steven J. Burgess
    19. Sylvia F. S. Guerra
    20. Vanessa T. Bortoluzzi
    21. Olavo B. Amaral
    Appears in 2 listsLatest version
Next