IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pbio00/3000151.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective

Author

Listed:
  • Sarvenaz Sarabipour
  • Humberto J Debat
  • Edward Emmott
  • Steven J Burgess
  • Benjamin Schwessinger
  • Zach Hensel

Abstract

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.This Perspective article from an interdisciplinary group of early career researchers explores the value of preprints, advocates the wider adoption of preprints to advance knowledge and facilitate career development, and tackles concerns and opportunities regarding their use.

Suggested Citation

  • Sarvenaz Sarabipour & Humberto J Debat & Edward Emmott & Steven J Burgess & Benjamin Schwessinger & Zach Hensel, 2019. "On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-12, February.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3000151
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Philippe Desjardins-Proulx & Ethan P White & Joel J Adamson & Karthik Ram & Timothée Poisot & Dominique Gravel, 2013. "The Case for Open Preprints in Biology," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(5), pages 1-5, May.
    2. Jessica K. Polka & Robert Kiley & Boyana Konforti & Bodo Stern & Ronald D. Vale, 2018. "Publish peer reviews," Nature, Nature, vol. 560(7720), pages 545-547, August.
    3. Vincent Larivière & Cassidy R. Sugimoto & Benoit Macaluso & Staša Milojević & Blaise Cronin & Mike Thelwall, 2014. "arXiv E-prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 65(6), pages 1157-1169, June.
    4. David B. Allison & Andrew W. Brown & Brandon J. George & Kathryn A. Kaiser, 2016. "Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors," Nature, Nature, vol. 530(7588), pages 27-29, February.
    5. Jory Lerback & Brooks Hanson, 2017. "Journals invite too few women to referee," Nature, Nature, vol. 541(7638), pages 455-457, January.
    6. Michail Kovanis & Raphaël Porcher & Philippe Ravaud & Ludovic Trinquart, 2016. "The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(11), pages 1-14, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Doyle, Cathal, 2020. "How Can I Share My Work? A Review of the Open Access Policies of IS Journals," OSF Preprints xr8mv, Center for Open Science.
    2. Klaus Wohlrabe & Constantin Bürgi, 2021. "Do working papers increase journal citations? Evidence from the top 5 journals in economics," Applied Economics Letters, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(17), pages 1531-1535, October.
    3. Alexandra Baumann & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2020. "Where have all the working papers gone? Evidence from four major economics working paper series," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2433-2441, September.
    4. Jonathan P. Tennant & Harry Crane & Tom Crick & Jacinto Davila & Asura Enkhbayar & Johanna Havemann & Bianca Kramer & Ryan Martin & Paola Masuzzo & Andy Nobes & Curt Rice & Bárbara Rivera-López & Tony, 2019. "Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-24, May.
    5. Tom Narock & Evan B. Goldstein, 2019. "Quantifying the Growth of Preprint Services Hosted by the Center for Open Science," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-14, June.
    6. Vincent Raoult, 2020. "How Many Papers Should Scientists Be Reviewing? An Analysis Using Verified Peer Review Reports," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, January.
    7. Klaus Wohlrabe & Constantin Bürgi, 2021. "What is the benefit from publishing a working paper in a journal in terms of citations? Evidence from economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4701-4714, June.
    8. Christopher Allen & David M A Mehler, 2019. "Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-14, May.
    9. Olivier Pourret & Dasapta Erwin Irawan & Jonathan P. Tennant, 2020. "On the Potential of Preprints in Geochemistry: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-6, April.
    10. Constantin Bürgi & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2021. "Working Papers, Journal Articles, and Citations: An Empirical Analysis for the Top Five Journals in Economics," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 74(02), pages 51-54, February.
    11. Akbaritabar, Aliakbar & Stephen, Dimity & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2022. "A study of referencing changes in preprint-publication pairs across multiple fields," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Lin Zhang & Yuanyuan Shang & Ying Huang & Gunnar Sivertsen, 2022. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on publons," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(1), pages 145-179, January.
    2. Zhang, Lin & Shang, Yuanyuan & HUANG, Ying & Sivertsen, Gunnar, 2021. "Gender differences among active reviewers: an investigation based on Publons," SocArXiv 4z6w8, Center for Open Science.
    3. Marc Bertin & Iana Atanassova, 2022. "Preprint citation practice in PLOS," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 6895-6912, December.
    4. Salandra, Rossella & Criscuolo, Paola & Salter, Ammon, 2021. "Directing scientists away from potentially biased publications: the role of systematic reviews in health care," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(1).
    5. Maciej J. Mrowinski & Agata Fronczak & Piotr Fronczak & Olgica Nedic & Aleksandar Dekanski, 2020. "The hurdles of academic publishing from the perspective of journal editors: a case study," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(1), pages 115-133, October.
    6. Citron, Daniel T. & Way, Samuel F., 2018. "Network assembly of scientific communities of varying size and specificity," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 181-190.
    7. Claudiu Herteliu & Marcel Ausloos & Bogdan Vasile Ileanu & Giulia Rotundo & Tudorel Andrei, 2017. "Quantitative and Qualitative Analysis of Editor Behavior through Potentially Coercive Citations," Publications, MDPI, vol. 5(2), pages 1-16, June.
    8. Guillaume Cabanac & Theodora Oikonomidi & Isabelle Boutron, 2021. "Day-to-day discovery of preprint–publication links," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 5285-5304, June.
    9. Ana Teresa Santos & Sandro Mendonça, 2022. "Do papers (really) match journals’ “aims and scope”? A computational assessment of innovation studies," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(12), pages 7449-7470, December.
    10. Jialiang Lin & Yao Yu & Yu Zhou & Zhiyang Zhou & Xiaodong Shi, 2020. "How many preprints have actually been printed and why: a case study of computer science preprints on arXiv," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(1), pages 555-574, July.
    11. Wang, Zhiqi & Chen, Yue & Glänzel, Wolfgang, 2020. "Preprints as accelerator of scholarly communication: An empirical analysis in Mathematics," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 14(4).
    12. Torsten Skov, 2020. "Unconscious Gender Bias in Academia: Scarcity of Empirical Evidence," Societies, MDPI, vol. 10(2), pages 1-13, March.
    13. Liwei Zhang & Jue Wang, 2021. "What affects publications’ popularity on Twitter?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(11), pages 9185-9198, November.
    14. Kiri, Bralind & Lacetera, Nicola & Zirulia, Lorenzo, 2018. "Above a swamp: A theory of high-quality scientific production," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(5), pages 827-839.
    15. Bianchi, Federico & Grimaldo, Francisco & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2019. "The F3-index. Valuing reviewers for scholarly journals," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 13(1), pages 78-86.
    16. Jenine K Harris & Merriah A Croston & Ellen T Hutti & Amy A Eyler, 2020. "Diversify the syllabi: Underrepresentation of female authors in college course readings," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(10), pages 1-14, October.
    17. Ana Vila-Concejo & Shari L. Gallop & Sarah M. Hamylton & Luciana S. Esteves & Karin R. Bryan & Irene Delgado-Fernandez & Emilia Guisado-Pintado & Siddhi Joshi & Graziela Miot Silva & Amaia Ruiz de Ale, 2018. "Steps to improve gender diversity in coastal geoscience and engineering," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 4(1), pages 1-9, December.
    18. Thomas C Südhof, 2016. "Truth in Science Publishing: A Personal Perspective," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(8), pages 1-4, August.
    19. Beibei Hu & Xianlei Dong & Chenwei Zhang & Timothy D. Bowman & Ying Ding & Staša Milojević & Chaoqun Ni & Erjia Yan & Vincent Larivière, 2015. "A lead-lag analysis of the topic evolution patterns for preprints and publications," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 66(12), pages 2643-2656, December.
    20. Matthew Cobb, 2017. "The prehistory of biology preprints: A forgotten experiment from the 1960s," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-12, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pbio00:3000151. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosbiology (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.