scholarly journals Publication practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: Biomedical preprints and peer-reviewed literature

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yulia V. Sevryugina ◽  
Andrew J. Dicks
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Life Sciences ◽  
Open Science ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Biomedical Sciences ◽  
Online Journal ◽  
Publication Practices ◽  
Comprehensive Study

AbstractThe coronavirus pandemic introduced many changes to our society, and deeply affected the established in biomedical sciences publication practices. In this article, we present a comprehensive study of the changes in scholarly publication landscape for biomedical sciences during the COVID-19 pandemic, with special emphasis on preprints posted on bioRxiv and medRxiv servers. We observe the emergence of a new category of preprint authors working in the fields of immunology, microbiology, infectious diseases, and epidemiology, who extensively used preprint platforms during the pandemic for sharing their immediate findings. The majority of these findings were works-in-progress unfitting for a prompt acceptance by refereed journals. The COVID-19 preprints that became peer-reviewed journal articles were often submitted to journals concurrently with the posting on a preprint server, and the entire publication cycle, from preprint to the online journal article, took on average 63 days. This included an expedited peer-review process of 43 days and journal’s production stage of 15 days, however there was a wide variation in publication delays between journals. Only one third of COVID-19 preprints posted during the first nine months of the pandemic appeared as peer-reviewed journal articles. These journal articles display high Altmetric Attention Scores further emphasizing a significance of COVID-19 research during 2020. This article will be relevant to editors, publishers, open science enthusiasts, and anyone interested in changes that the 2020 crisis transpired to publication practices and a culture of preprints in life sciences.

scholarly journals Peer review reduces spin in PCORI research reports

2021 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Evan Mayo-Wilson ◽  
Meredith L. Phillips ◽  
Avonne E. Connor ◽  
Kelly J. Vander Ley ◽  
Kevin Naaman ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Research Report ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Press Releases ◽  
Patient Centered ◽  
Before And After ◽  
Peer Reviewers

Abstract Background The Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is obligated to peer review and to post publicly “Final Research Reports” of all funded projects. PCORI peer review emphasizes adherence to PCORI’s Methodology Standards and principles of ethical scientific communication. During the peer review process, reviewers and editors seek to ensure that results are presented objectively and interpreted appropriately, e.g., free of spin. Methods Two independent raters assessed PCORI peer review feedback sent to authors. We calculated the proportion of reports in which spin was identified during peer review, and the types of spin identified. We included reports submitted by April 2018 with at least one associated journal article. The same raters then assessed whether authors addressed reviewers’ comments about spin. The raters also assessed whether spin identified during PCORI peer review was present in related journal articles. Results We included 64 PCORI-funded projects. Peer reviewers or editors identified spin in 55/64 (86%) submitted research reports. Types of spin included reporting bias (46/55; 84%), inappropriate interpretation (40/55; 73%), inappropriate extrapolation of results (15/55; 27%), and inappropriate attribution of causality (5/55; 9%). Authors addressed comments about spin related to 47/55 (85%) of the reports. Of 110 associated journal articles, PCORI comments about spin were potentially applicable to 44/110 (40%) articles, of which 27/44 (61%) contained the same spin that was identified in the PCORI research report. The proportion of articles with spin was similar for articles accepted before and after PCORI peer review (63% vs 58%). Discussion Just as spin is common in journal articles and press releases, we found that most reports submitted to PCORI included spin. While most spin was mitigated during the funder’s peer review process, we found no evidence that review of PCORI reports influenced spin in journal articles. Funders could explore interventions aimed at reducing spin in published articles of studies they support.

Overview of the Journal Article

2008 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marin S Robinson ◽  
Fredricka L Stoller ◽  
Molly Constanza-Robinson ◽  
James K Jones
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Writing Quality ◽  
Journal Quality ◽  
Primary Literature ◽  
Public Record ◽  
Chemistry Journal

This chapter introduces the journal article module. The chapter describes some of the defining characteristics of a journal article while emphasizing concise writing and organization. By the end of this chapter, you should be able to do the following: Recognize the importance ■ of concise writing ■ Identify the broad organizational structure of journal articles ■ Explain what is meant by targeted reading and keywords As you move through the chapter, you will begin to plan your own journal- quality paper. The Writing on Your Own tasks throughout the chapter will guide you in this process: 2A Get started 2B Select your topic 2C Conduct a literature search 2D Find additional resources 2E Decide on the broad organization of your paper Module 1 focuses entirely on writing a journal-quality paper, a paper suitable for submission to a refereed chemistry journal. Refereed journals include only articles that have made it through a rigorous peer-review process. In this process, a submitted manuscript is critically reviewed by two or more anonymous reviewers. The reviewers are asked to judge both the scientific merit and writing quality of the manuscript. Authors are often required to revise their work before it can be accepted for publication. The entire review process can take six months or longer. An account of the review process typically appears in the published article, for example, Received for review March 9, 2008. Revised manuscript received August 3, 2008. Accepted August 5, 2008. Once published, the journal article becomes part of the primary literature of chemistry. The primary literature is a permanent and public record of all scientific works, many of which are refereed journal articles.

scholarly journals Online Journals: the Path Towards Visibility and Quality

1970 ◽  
Vol 3 ◽  
pp. 175-184
Author(s):  
Julie Walker
Keyword(s):  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Editorial Office ◽  
Online Journal ◽  
Scientific Publications ◽  
Journal Editors ◽  
Virtuous Cycle ◽  
Journal Visibility

Increasing the visibility of a journal is the key to increasing quality. The International Network for the Availability of Scientific Publications works with journal editors in the global South to publish their journals online and to increase the efficiency of the peer review process. Editors are trained in using the Open Journals System software and in online journal management and strategy so they have the tools and knowledge needed to initiate a ‘virtuous cycle' in which visibility leads to an increase in the number and quality of submissions and in turn, increased citations and impact. In order to maximise this increase in quality, it must be supported by strong editorial office processes and management. This article describes some of the issues and strategies faced by the editors INASP works with, placing a particular emphasis on Nepal Journals Online. Key words: INASP; Open Journals System; Journals Online Projects; Nepal Journals Online; journal visibility; peer review DOI: 10.3126/dsaj.v3i0.2786 Dhaulagiri Journal of Sociology and Anthropology Vol.3 2009 175-184

scholarly journals Cost hurdles to open access publishing: A citizen scientist perspective

2016 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenfa Ng
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Natural World ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Funding Agency ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Scientific Enterprise ◽  
New Research

Besides offering fun activities for non-scientists to explore the natural world through experiments, simulations or games, the evolving concept of citizen science is increasingly allowing some serious publication quality science to be published by the practitioners (citizen scientists) themselves. The latter is in contrast to the common perception of citizen science, where most citizen science projects such as Foldit are distribution of piecemeal segments of complex projects suitable for solution by individuals, and where the results are pooled together, or used to inform the design and direction of more complex research initiatives. Usually novices in science publishing but nonetheless aware of the importance of journal articles as the primary medium for communicating new research to the wider community (scientific and general public), citizen scientists do encounter significant challenges in science publication. One challenge is in navigating the lengthy and time-consuming peer review process of most journals. But, as benefactors of open access publishing where most journal articles are within pay walls inaccessible to citizen scientists without any research funding, open access publishing is one platform sought after or exist as an option for citizen scientists. Is the option open? Yes, at the preprint level where figshare, and PeerJ Preprints help provide an avenue for citizen scientists to have a published non peer reviewed article online, but no at the higher end “journal article” level where the manuscript needs to be peer reviewed. Even the biological sciences preprint server, bioRxiv, is closed to citizen scientists as publication on the server requires an institution affiliation with either a university or research institute. Most open access publishers (except eLife) charge a publication fee (in the thousands of dollars per article) to defray the cost of maintaining an online presence for a peer reviewed manuscript as well as those for copyediting during final stages of journal publication. This is a significant barrier to cost constrained citizen scientists who want to contribute to the scientific discourse. For the scientific enterprise, this represent a loss, whose magnitude or severity cannot be quantified since ideas help seed new research or entirely new fields. Thus, can we as a community provide citizen scientists worldwide a chance to publish open access peer reviewed articles without significant cost through a competitive publication fee subsidy scheme where each application is reviewed by the national science funding agency? If the above is possible, it would open up another area where ideas from citizen scientists could percolate into the scientific mainstream, where, as always, vibrancy and diversity of ideas power science forward.

scholarly journals A year in the life of eLife

eLife ◽  
2013 ◽  
Vol 2 ◽  
Author(s):  
Randy Schekman ◽  
Fiona M Watt ◽  
Detlef Weigel
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Peer Review ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
First Year ◽  
Biomedical Sciences

Improving the peer review process, overcoming the limitations of print journals and providing open access to the very best work in the life and biomedical sciences are three highlights of our first year.

scholarly journals A brief guide to the science and art of writing manuscripts in biomedicine

2020 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Diego A. Forero ◽  
Sandra Lopez-Leon ◽  
George Perry
Keyword(s):  
Biological Sciences ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Scientific Journals ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Science And Art ◽  
Multiple Dimensions ◽  
Peer Reviewers ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Writing Major

Abstract Publishing articles in international scientific journals is the primary method for the communication of validated research findings and ideas. Journal articles are commonly used as a major input for evaluations of researchers and institutions. Few articles have been published previously about the different aspects needed for writing high-quality articles. In this manuscript, we provide an updated and brief guide for the multiple dimensions needed for writing manuscripts in the health and biological sciences, from current, international and interdisciplinary perspectives and from our expertise as authors, peer reviewers and editors. We provide key suggestions for writing major sections of the manuscript (e.g. title, abstract, introduction, methods, results and discussion), for submitting the manuscript and bring an overview of the peer review process and  of the post-publication impact of the articles.

Message from Editor

2016 ◽  
Vol 6 (1) ◽  
pp. 01
Author(s):  
Dogan Ibrahim
Keyword(s):  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Original Research ◽  
Research Papers ◽  
Online Journal ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
High Quality Research ◽  
Related Field ◽  
Business Applications ◽  
New Applications

Dear Readers, It is the great honor for us to publish sixth volume, first issue of Global Journal of Computer Sciences: Theory and Research. Global Journal of Computer Sciences: Theory and Research is an international online journal for scientists and professionals involved in all aspects of computer sciences. This journal serves as an international platform that fosters theoretical and practical issues and new applications for all scientists and professionals from the field of computer sciences including original research and innovative applications from all parts of the world. Global Journal of Computer Sciences: Theory and Research is a double-blind peer-reviewed journal that publishes original theoretical and applied papers on all aspects regarding computer sciences. It is intended to be a multi-disciplinary international journal aimed at revealing results of research on computer sciences. Computer-related achievement, anxiety and attitude and messaging and presence protocol’s adaptation to business applications topics have been included into this issue. The topics of the next issue will be different. You can make sure that we will be trying to serve you with our journal with a rich knowledge in which different kinds of topics are discussed in 2016 Volume. A total number of eight (8) manuscripts were submitted for this issue and each paper has been subjected to double-blind peer review process by the reviewers specialized in the related field. At the end of the review process, a total number of two (2) high quality research papers were selected and accepted for publication. We present many thanks to all the contributors who helped us to publish this issue. Best regards, Prof. Dr. Dogan Ibrahim Editor – in Chief

scholarly journals Motivations, concerns and selection biases when posting preprints: a survey of bioRxiv authors

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Nicholas Fraser ◽  
Philipp Mayr ◽  
Isabella Peters
Keyword(s):  
Mixed Methods ◽  
Review Process ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Causal Mechanism ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Online Platforms ◽  
Weak Evidence ◽  
Significant Research ◽  
Number Of Citations ◽  
Selection Of

AbstractSince 2013, the usage of preprints as a means of sharing research in biology has rapidly grown, in particular via the preprint server bioRxiv. Recent studies have found that journal articles that were previously posted to bioRxiv received a higher number of citations or mentions/shares on other online platforms compared to articles in the same journals that were not posted. However, the exact causal mechanism for this effect has not been established, and may in part be related to authors’ biases in the selection of articles that are chosen to be posted as preprints. We aimed to investigate this mechanism by conducting a mixed-methods survey of 1,444 authors of bioRxiv preprints, to investigate the reasons that they post or do not post certain articles as preprints, and to make comparisons between articles they choose to post and not post as preprints. We find that authors are most strongly motivated to post preprints to increase awareness of their work and increase the speed of its dissemination; conversely, the strongest reasons for not posting preprints centre around a lack of awareness of preprints and reluctance to publicly post work that has not undergone a peer review process. We additionally find weak evidence that authors preferentially select their highest quality, most novel or most significant research to post as preprints, however, authors retain an expectation that articles they post as preprints will receive more citations or be shared more widely online than articles not posted.

scholarly journals Cost hurdles to open access publishing: A citizen scientist perspective

2017 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wenfa Ng
Keyword(s):  
Open Access ◽  
Citizen Science ◽  
Peer Review Process ◽  
Journal Article ◽  
Natural World ◽  
Open Access Publishing ◽  
Funding Agency ◽  
Journal Articles ◽  
Scientific Enterprise ◽  
New Research

Besides offering fun activities for non-scientists to explore the natural world through experiments, simulations or games, the evolving concept of citizen science is increasingly allowing some serious publication quality science to be published by the practitioners (citizen scientists) themselves. The latter is in contrast to the common perception of citizen science, where most citizen science projects such as Foldit are distribution of piecemeal segments of complex projects suitable for solution by individuals, and where the results are pooled together and informs the design and direction of more complex research initiatives. Usually novices in science publishing but nonetheless aware of the importance of journal articles as the primary medium for communicating new research to the wider community (scientific and general public), citizen scientists do encounter significant challenges in science publication. One challenge is in navigating the lengthy and time-consuming peer review process of most journals. But, as benefactors of open access publishing given that most journal articles are within pay walls inaccessible to citizen scientists without any research funding, open access publishing is one platform sought after or exist as an option for citizen scientists. Is the option open? Yes, at the preprint level where figshare, and PeerJ Preprints help provide an avenue for citizen scientists to have a published non peer reviewed article online, but no at the higher end gold (or immediate) open access journal article level where the manuscript needs to be peer reviewed. Even the biological sciences preprint server, bioRxiv, is closed to citizen scientists as publication on the server requires an institution affiliation with either a university or research institute. Most open access publishers charge a publication fee (in the hundreds to thousands of dollars per article) to defray the cost of maintaining an online presence for a peer reviewed manuscript as well as those for copyediting during final stages of journal article production. This is a significant barrier to cost constrained citizen scientists who want to contribute to the scientific discourse. For the scientific enterprise, this represent a loss, whose magnitude or severity cannot be quantified since ideas help seed new research ideas and fields. Thus, can we as a community provide citizen scientists worldwide a chance to publish gold open access peer reviewed articles without significant cost through a competitive publication fee subsidy scheme where each application is reviewed by the national science funding agency? If the above is possible, it would open up another area where ideas from citizen scientists could percolate into the scientific mainstream, where, as always, vibrancy and diversity of ideas power science forward.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document