On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective

Peer-reviewed journal publication is the main means for academic researchers in the life sciences to create a permanent public record of their work. These publications are also the de facto currency for career progress, with a strong link between journal brand recognition and perceived value. The current peer-review process can lead to long delays between submission and publication, with cycles of rejection, revision, and resubmission causing redundant peer review. This situation creates unique challenges for early career researchers (ECRs), who rely heavily on timely publication of their work to gain recognition for their efforts. Today, ECRs face a changing academic landscape, including the increased interdisciplinarity of life sciences research, expansion of the researcher population, and consequent shifts in employer and funding demands. The publication of preprints, publicly available scientific manuscripts posted on dedicated preprint servers prior to journal-managed peer review, can play a key role in addressing these ECR challenges. Preprinting benefits include rapid dissemination of academic work, open access, establishing priority or concurrence, receiving feedback, and facilitating collaborations. Although there is a growing appreciation for and adoption of preprints, a minority of all articles in life sciences and medicine are preprinted. The current low rate of preprint submissions in life sciences and ECR concerns regarding preprinting need to be addressed. We provide a perspective from an interdisciplinary group of ECRs on the value of preprints and advocate their wide adoption to advance knowledge and facilitate career development.

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

[2]  Brian M. Till,et al.  Who is pirating medical literature? A bibliometric review of 28 million Sci-Hub downloads. , 2019, The Lancet. Global health.

[3]  Sam Ganzfried,et al.  Predicting Hurricane Trajectories using a Recurrent Neural Network , 2018, AAAI.

[4]  Richard Van Noorden.  Wellcome and Gates join bold European open-access plan , 2018 .

[5]  Peter van Baarlen,et al.  An open microscopy framework suited for tracking dCas9 in live bacteria , 2018, bioRxiv.

[6]  R. Rosenfeld,et al.  Forecasting seasonal influenza in the U.S.: A collaborative multi-year, multi-model assessment of forecast performance , 2018, bioRxiv.

[7]  Robert Kiley,et al.  Publish peer reviews , 2018, Nature.

[8]  Prachee Avasthi,et al.  Journal clubs in the time of preprints , 2018, eLife.

[9]  Luke Oakden-Rayner,et al.  Medical journals should embrace preprints to address the reproducibility crisis. , 2018, International journal of epidemiology.

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

[11]  Bernd Rieger,et al.  Phasor based single-molecule localization microscopy in 3D (pSMLM-3D): An algorithm for MHz localization rates using standard CPUs. , 2018, The Journal of chemical physics.

[12]  Yanlei Feng,et al.  Rapid remote sensing assessment of impacts from Hurricane Maria on forests of Puerto Rico , 2018 .

[13]  Konrad P. Körding,et al.  The Social Structure of Consensus in Scientific Review , 2018, ArXiv.

[14]  J. Ioannidis,et al.  Altmetric Scores, Citations, and Publication of Studies Posted as Preprints , 2018, JAMA.

[15]  The importance of being second , 2018, PLoS biology.

[16]  P. Phan,et al.  Lost opportunities. , 2017, Nature.

[17]  A. Raj,et al.  Single-molecule fluorescent amplification of RNA using clampFISH probes , 2017, bioRxiv.

[18]  M. Peifer,et al.  LITE microscopy: a technique for high numerical aperture, low photobleaching fluorescence imaging , 2017, bioRxiv.

[19]  J. Kaiser.  The preprint dilemma. , 2017, Science.

[20]  Eve Marder.  Beyond scoops to best practices , 2017, eLife.

[21]  Philipp J. Keller,et al.  A general method to fine-tune fluorophores for live-cell and in vivo imaging , 2017, Nature Methods.

[22]  Jocelyn Kaiser.  NIH enables investigators to include draft preprints in grant proposals , 2017 .

[23]  M. Frank,et al.  University of Birmingham Catecholaminergic challenge uncovers distinct Pavlovian and instrumental mechanisms of motivated (in)action , 2017 .

[24]  Jeroen Smits,et al.  Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective , 2017, Scientometrics.

[25]  Brooks Hanson,et al.  Journals invite too few women to referee , 2017, Nature.

[26]  D. Ginther,et al.  The impact of postdoctoral training on early careers in biomedicine , 2017, Nature Biotechnology.

[27]  L. Trinquart,et al.  The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise , 2016, PloS one.

[28]  P. Weintraub.  The Importance of Publishing Negative Results , 2016, Journal of insect science.

[29]  A. Rosa,et al.  The Interaction between Childhood Bullying and the FKBP5 Gene on Psychotic-Like Experiences and Stress Reactivity in Real Life , 2016, PloS one.

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

[31]  David B. Allison,et al.  Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors , 2016, Nature.

[32]  D. Nayduch,et al.  Bacterial Associations Across House Fly Life History: Evidence for Transstadial Carriage From Managed Manure , 2016, Journal of insect science.

[33]  David Henry,et al.  Liberating the data from clinical trials , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

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

[35]  Pardis C. Sabeti,et al.  Data sharing: Make outbreak research open access , 2015, Nature.

[36]  Vincent Larivière,et al.  arXiv E‐prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships , 2013, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[37]  Philippe Desjardins-Proulx,et al.  The Case for Open Preprints in Biology , 2013, PLoS biology.

[38]  M. Way,et al.  The San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment , 2013, Journal of Cell Science.

[39]  Heng Li.  Aligning sequence reads, clone sequences and assembly contigs with BWA-MEM , 2013, 1303.3997.

[40]  D. Geman,et al.  Computational Medicine: Translating Models to Clinical Care , 2012 .

[41]  B. Björk,et al.  Anatomy of open access publishing: a study of longitudinal development and internal structure , 2012, BMC Medicine.

[42]  A. Casadevall,et al.  Retracted Science and the Retraction Index , 2011, Infection and Immunity.

[43]  M. Fenner.  In which I suggest a preprint archive for clinical trials , 2010 .

[44]  Alan Hastings,et al.  The tragedy of the reviewer commons. , 2009, Ecology letters.

[45]  K. Bloomfield.  A tragedy of errors , 2007 .

[46]  S. Rockwell,et al.  Publishing Negative Results: The Problem of Publication Bias , 2006, Radiation research.

[47]  Richard Smith,et al.  Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals , 2006 .

[48]  Richard Smith,et al.  Peer Review: A Flawed Process at the Heart of Science and Journals , 2006, Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[49]  Helmut L Karcher,et al.  The tragedy of errors , 1996 .