Preprints in Scholarly Communication: Re-Imagining Metrics and Infrastructures

Digital scholarship and electronic publishing within scholarly communities change when metrics and open infrastructures take center stage for measuring research impact. In scholarly communication, the growth of preprint repositories as a new model of scholarly publishing over the last three decades has been one of the major developments. As it unfolds, the landscape of scholarly communication is transitioning—with much being privatized as it is made open—and turning towards alternative metrics, such as social media attention, author-level, and article-level metrics. Moreover, the granularity of evaluating research impact through new metrics and social media changes the objective standards of evaluating research performance. Using preprint repositories as a case study, this article situates them in a scholarly web, examining their salient features, benefits, and futures. Moves towards scholarly web development and publishing on the semantic and social web with open infrastructures, citations, and alternative metrics—how preprints advance building the web as data—is discussed. We determine that this will viably demonstrate new metrics and, by enhancing research publishing tools in the scholarly commons, facilitate various communities of practice. However, for preprint repositories to be sustainable, scholarly communities and funding agencies should support continued investment in open knowledge, alternative metrics development, and open infrastructures in scholarly publishing.

[1]  Jonathan P. Tennant,et al.  The evolving preprint landscape: introductory report for the Knowledge Exchange Working Group on Preprints , 2018 .

[2]  P. Haas,et al.  Sustainable Development Goals: create a coordinating body , 2016, Nature.

[3]  M. Wacha,et al.  The State of OA: A large-scale analysis of the prevalence and impact of Open Access articles , 2017 .

[4]  Lauren B. Collister,et al.  The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. , 2016, F1000Research.

[5]  K. C. Garg,et al.  Uncitedness of Indian Scientific Output , 2014 .

[6]  Rodrigo Costas,et al.  Do “altmetrics” correlate with citations? Extensive comparison of altmetric indicators with citations from a multidisciplinary perspective , 2014, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[7]  Definition of "sole contribution". , 1969, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  Kara H. Woo,et al.  Data Organization in Spreadsheets , 2018 .

[9]  F. Fahy,et al.  From invisibility to impact: Recognising the scientific and societal relevance of interdisciplinary sustainability research , 2018 .

[10]  Holly Else,et al.  Radical open-access plan could spell end to journal subscriptions , 2018, Nature.

[11]  Erik Schultes,et al.  The FAIR Guiding Principles for scientific data management and stewardship , 2016, Scientific Data.

[12]  Alessandro Blasimme,et al.  Improving the Measurement of Scientific Success by Reporting a Self-Citation Index , 2017, Publ..

[13]  Simone Raudino,et al.  The Tyranny of Metrics , 2019, The European Legacy.

[14]  Larry Peiperl,et al.  Preprints in medical research: Progress and principles , 2018, PLoS medicine.

[15]  M. Egger,et al.  Discipline-specific open access publishing practices and barriers to change: an evidence-based review , 2018, F1000Research.

[16]  Lauren B. Collister,et al.  The academic, economic and societal impacts of Open Access: an evidence-based review. , 2016, F1000Research.

[17]  Jonathan P. Tennant,et al.  The state of the art in peer review , 2018, FEMS microbiology letters.

[18]  Vinay,et al.  An integrative review of Web 3.0 in academic libraries , 2018 .

[19]  Creative Commons,et al.  Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) , 2015 .

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

[21]  B. Brembs Prestigious Science Journals Struggle to Reach Even Average Reliability , 2018, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[22]  G. Eysenbach,et al.  Biomedical Research , 2020, Definitions.

[23]  S. Haustein,et al.  The Oligopoly of Academic Publishers in the Digital Era , 2015, PloS one.

[24]  Bo-Christer Björk,et al.  Open access to scientific publications - an analysis of the barriers to change , 2003, Inf. Res..

[25]  Wang Jun Open Archives Initiative Protocol for Metadata Harvesting , 2005 .

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

[27]  Bo-Christer Björk,et al.  Evolution of the scholarly mega-journal, 2006–2017 , 2018, PeerJ.

[28]  Gunilla Widén,et al.  Scholarly communication and possible changes in the context of social media: A Finnish case study , 2011, Electron. Libr..

[29]  Mike Thelwall,et al.  Google Scholar, Web of Science, and Scopus: a systematic comparison of citations in 252 subject categories , 2018, J. Informetrics.

[30]  Tim Berners-Lee,et al.  The read–write Linked Data Web , 2013, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences.

[31]  Björn Brembs,et al.  RELX referral to EU competition authority , 2018 .

[32]  Mike Buschman,et al.  Are alternative metrics still alternative , 2013 .

[33]  M. Fischer,et al.  Beyond the Impact Factor – What do alternative metrics have to offer? , 2017, GMS journal for medical education.

[34]  Cameron Neylon,et al.  On the origin of nonequivalent states: How we can talk about preprints , 2016, bioRxiv.

[35]  Martyn Rittman Preprints as a Hub for Early-Stage Research Outputs , 2018 .

[36]  P. Seglen,et al.  Citation rates and journal impact factors are not suitable for evaluation of research. , 1998, Acta orthopaedica Scandinavica.

[37]  Christina K. Pikas,et al.  A multi-disciplinary perspective on emergent and future innovations in peer review , 2017, F1000Research.

[38]  Andy R Weale,et al.  The level of non-citation of articles within a journal as a measure of quality: a comparison to the impact factor , 2004, BMC medical research methodology.

[39]  B Preedip Balaji,et al.  Open Content: An Inference for Developing an Open Information Field , 2013 .

[40]  David Ellis,et al.  Changing styles of informal academic communication in the age of the web: Orthodox, moderate and heterodox responses , 2017, J. Documentation.

[41]  Wei Jeng,et al.  DataCite as a novel bibliometric source: Coverage, strengths and limitations , 2017, J. Informetrics.

[42]  Rob Johnson,et al.  Securing the Future of Open-Access Policies , 2015 .

[43]  Andrea Widener ACS proposed chemistry preprint server , 2016 .

[44]  Sarah E Ali-Khan,et al.  Defining Success in Open Science , 2018, MNI open research.

[45]  Jeffrey R. Spies,et al.  SHARE: Community-focused Infrastructure and a Public Goods, Scholarly Database to Advance Access to Research , 2017, D Lib Mag..

[46]  Tom Sheldon,et al.  Preprints could promote confusion and distortion , 2018, Nature.

[47]  Björn Brembs,et al.  Deep impact: unintended consequences of journal rank , 2013, Front. Hum. Neurosci..

[48]  Lauren Brochu,et al.  Librarians and Research Data Management–A Literature Review: Commentary from a Senior Professional and a New Professional Librarian , 2018, New Review of Academic Librarianship.

[49]  Ariel Deardorff,et al.  Open Science Framework (OSF) , 2017, Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA.

[50]  Lai Ma,et al.  Scholarly communication and practices in the world of metrics: An exploratory study , 2016, ASIST.

[51]  R. Strax Peer Review: Past, Present, and Future. , 2017, Journal of the American College of Radiology : JACR.

[52]  Lutz Bornmann,et al.  Scientific Peer Review: An Analysis of the Peer Review Process from the Perspective of Sociology of Science Theories , 2008 .

[53]  Jennifer S. Evans-Cowley There's an App for That: Mobile Applications for Urban Planning , 2011 .

[54]  P. Willett,et al.  Open-Access Mega-Journals , 2019, Definitions.

[55]  Enrique Orduña-Malea,et al.  Author-level metrics in the new academic profile platforms: The online behaviour of the Bibliometrics community , 2018, J. Informetrics.

[56]  Zewen Hu,et al.  A probe into causes of non-citation based on survey data , 2015, ArXiv.

[57]  Sarvenaz Sarabipour,et al.  Maintaining confidence in the reporting of scientific outputs , 2018 .

[58]  M. Cobb The prehistory of biology preprints: A forgotten experiment from the 1960s , 2017, PLoS biology.

[59]  Richard Van Noorden Open access: The true cost of science publishing , 2013, Nature.

[60]  Colin Camerer : Past , Present , Future , 2003 .

[61]  F. Arnaud,et al.  From core referencing to data re-use: two French national initiatives to reinforce paleodata stewardship (National Cyber Core Repository and LTER France Retro-Observatory) , 2017 .

[62]  Cenyu Shen,et al.  Open Access Scholarly Journal Publishing in Chinese , 2017, Publ..

[63]  Policy,et al.  Open Science by Design , 2018 .

[64]  Teixeira da Silva,et al.  The preprint wars , 2017 .