Search

During the COVID‐19 epidemic, the characteristics of rapid sharing of research findings were fully reflected on the bioRxiv platform, which received considerable attention from scholars. bioRxiv currently collaborates with 242 journals, addressing that it can save authors time in submitting papers to journals or peer review services by transmitting their manuscript files and metadata directly from bioRxiv. To see if preprints are altering the publishing process, we compared the duration of the peer review process between bioRxiv and journal papers. This study investigated papers' submission and publication times from bioRxiv to journals (B2J) and authors to journals (A2J) in 119 academic journals from November 2013 to February 2020. Findings reveal that 33 journals exhibited significant differences in the duration time between B2J and A2J papers. B2J papers were published faster than A2J papers in 29 journals, indicating that sharing on the preprint platform could shorten the peer review time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study examines the relation between acceptance times in preprint publishing and journal publishing. Specifically, we investigated the association between a paper's posting time to bioRχiv, a preprints server, and journal articles' peer‐review and acceptance time for PLOS ONE. So far, of the total papers published in 1,626 academic journals, the average publication rate of those posted in bioRχiv is 40.67%. Meanwhile, PLOS ONE was the journal that published more papers. Analysis of peer‐review and acceptance time of papers published in journals via preprints showed the time these papers are posted in relation to these intervals. The median of the peer‐review and acceptance time of the journal submission date that was later than the date of first posting to bioRχiv was 110.00 days, and in the reverse case, it was 139.50 days. Posting to the preprint server before journal submission shows a better order than vice versa. This study provides us a good understanding of the peer‐review process. It also gives us good insights into optimizing this process, which would then facilitate paper publication and knowledge dissemination. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This study investigated papers posted on bioRXiv. In 2013–19, 17,818 papers were published in academic journals, accounting for 40.67% of the total publication. Among them, the Web of Science (WoS) Core Collection recorded journals of 16,525 published papers, accounting for 92.74% of the total. The following conclusions can be drawn. (1) Results indicate scientists' attention to the preprint system. (2) A large number of papers still use traditional publishing as the ultimate goal. (3) Because the posted papers scrutinized in this study were published in journals with a high impact factor, they have attracted the attention of many scientists. Nevertheless, we believe that the preprint platform will play a greater role from the academic exchange perspective. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]