• 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
    This article has 0 evaluations Published on Added on
  • 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
    This article has 0 evaluations Published on Added on

    Annotation by 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.

  • Enabling preprint discovery, evaluation, and analysis with Europe PMC

    1. Mariia Levchenko
    2. Michael Parkin
    3. Johanna McEntyre
    4. Melissa Harrison
    This article has 0 evaluations Published on Added on

    Annotation by 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.

  • 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
    This article has 0 evaluations Added on

    Annotation by 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. "

  • Preprint review services: Disrupting the scholarly communication landscape?

    1. Susana Oliveira Henriques
    2. Narmin Rzayeva
    3. Stephen Pinfield
    4. Ludo Waltman
    This article has 1 evaluations Published on Added on

    Annotation by 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.

  • Trusted Research: a Primer from CPNI

    1. Reproducibility Network
    This article has 0 evaluations Published on Added on

    Annotation by 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"

  • Preprints: a Primer from UKRN

    1. Manuel Spitschan
    2. Sally Rumsey
    3. Matt Jaquiery
    4. Matteo M Galizzi
    This article has 0 evaluations Published on Added on

    Annotation by Mark Williams

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