The unBalanced ecoLOGist: Preprints, Open Science, and the Muddy Road Ahead (Part 1)

Monthly submissions of preprints to bioRxiv. Figure from Le Monde March 20, 2018.

While browsing my twitter feed this morning, I came across a tweet from ScienceOpen about a new article “In praise of preprints” by Norman Fry, Helina Marhsall, and Tasha Mellins-Cohen (published open access in Microbial Genomics; doi: 10.1099/mgen.0.000259). This article re-asserts familiar advantages (credit, visibility, pre-submission and prepublication review) and disadvantages (no peer review, novelty not required, financially unsustainable, and obscuring priority), and ends with a reinforced commitment to preprints (and smoothed workflow via bioRxiv) and a position statement in support of preprints from the Microbiology Society.

At ±5am EDT, there was already one response to this, from Lonni Besançon, who wrote:

can only be helpful in the dissemination of research results. I wonder whether someone has looked at whether they could actually be enough. could happen directly on preprint platforms and could be done massively and in a totally open fashion

which prompted me to wonder (and reply) whether any of the preprints I’ve posted have received any comments…

The answer: No. Not a one. In five years of posting preprints.

And, as today is a holiday here in the US, I had plenty of time to burrow further down this rabbit-hole…

Continue reading