Study of the Influence of Preprint in bioRχiv for Peer Review and Acceptance Time of PLOS ONE

ABSTRACT This study uses statistical methods to analyze the differences in peer review periods between the processes of preprint based on authors’ order of posting published papers in a given journal. For this purpose, we developed a web crawler that downloaded metadata from bioRχiv and PLOS ONE. The average publication rate of papers posted in bioRχiv accounts for 40.67% of the total thus far. These papers were published in 1,626 academic journals. The journal that published most of these papers was PLOS ONE. Analysis of Peer Review and Acceptance Time (PRAT) of papers published in journals via preprints revealed the timing of posting papers related to these intervals. The median of PRAT of f

[1]  Gerry McKiernan,et al.  arXiv.org: the Los Alamos National Laboratory e‐print server , 2000 .

[2]  Marten Postma,et al.  PlotsOfData—A web app for visualizing data together with their summaries , 2019, PLoS biology.

[3]  P. Ginsparg.  ArXiv at 20 , 2011, Nature.

[4]  Peter Willett,et al.  Academic communities: The role of journals and open-access mega-journals in scholarly communication , 2019, J. Documentation.

[5]  Ronald D. Vale,et al.  Accelerating scientific publication in biology , 2015, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[6]  Jacalyn Kelly,et al.  Peer Review in Scientific Publications: Benefits, Critiques, & A Survival Guide , 2014, EJIFCC.

[7]  Kendall Powell,et al.  Does it take too long to publish research? , 2016, Nature.

[8]  Catherine Mangan,et al.  “Being brave”: A case study of how an innovative peer review approach led to service improvement , 2016 .

[9]  Peter Willett,et al.  Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review , 2017, J. Documentation.

[10]  Zach Hensel,et al.  On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective , 2018, PLoS biology.

[11]  Brian Paltridge.  Learning to review submissions to peer reviewed journals: how do they do it? , 2013 .

[12]  Cecelia M. Brown.  The role of electronic preprints in chemical communication: Analysis of citation, usage, and acceptance in the journal literature , 2003, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[13]  Fytton Rowland,et al.  The peer‐review process , 2002, Learn. Publ..

[14]  Solomon H. Snyder,et al.  Science interminable: Blame Ben? , 2013, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

[15]  Ran Blekhman,et al.  Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints , 2019 .

[16]  Cecelia M. Brown.  The E-volution of preprints in the scholarly communication of physicists and astronomers , 2001, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[17]  Ran Blekhman,et al.  Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints , 2019, bioRxiv.

[19]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication , 2015, Aslib J. Inf. Manag..

[20]  Lauren Ancel Meyers,et al.  Preprints: An underutilized mechanism to accelerate outbreak science , 2018, PLoS Medicine.

[21]  K. Jacobson,et al.  Complexity Revealed: A Hierarchy of Clustered Membrane Proteins. , 2016, Biophysical journal.

[22]  T. Johnson,et al.  The virtual library in action: Collaborative international control of high-energy physics pre-prints , 1997 .

[23]  Kent R. Anderson.  bioRxiv: Trends and analysis of five years of preprints , 2020, Learn. Publ..

[24]  Stacy S. Wykle.  Enclaves of anarchy: Preprint sharing, 1940-1990 , 2014, ASIST.

[25]  Philip E. Bourne,et al.  Preprints for the life sciences , 2016, Science.