Search

Preprints enable new forms of peer review that have the potential to be more thorough, inclusive, and collegial. In December 2022, 80 researchers and representatives of funders, institutions, preprint servers, journals, indexers, and review services were invited to gather online and at the Janelia Research Campus for a workshop on Recognizing Preprint Peer Review. Sponsored by HHMI, ASAPbio, and EMBO, this meeting aimed to catalyze community consensus and support for preprint peer review and to create model funder, institutional, and journal policies that recognize both preprints with reviews, and reviews of preprints. Here, we make a call to action to stakeholders in the community to help capture the growing momentum of preprint sharing and empower researchers to provide open and constructive peer review for preprints.

The use of preprints, research manuscripts shared publicly before completing the traditional peer-review process, is becoming a more common practice among life science researchers. Early-career researchers (ECRs) benefit from posting preprints as they are shareable, citable, and prove productivity. However, preprinting a manuscript involves a discussion among all co-authors, and ECRs are often not the decision-makers. Therefore, ECRs may find themselves in situations where they are interested in depositing a preprint but are unsure how to approach their co-authors or advisor about preprinting. Leveraging our own experiences as ECRs, and feedback from the research community, we have constructed a guide for ECRs who are considering preprinting to enable them to take ownership over the process and to raise awareness about preprinting options. We hope that this guide helps ECRs to initiate conversations about preprinting with co-authors and encourage them to preprint their future research.

Researchers spend a lot of time doing peer review, and by a lot we are talking about over 100 million hours per year (estimate for 2020 by Aczel et al.). It is a complex and time consuming process that is often presented as a pillar to science dissemination, ...

Preprints catalyze rapid and open communication of research. A frequent criticism of preprints, however, is their lack of peer review. In recent years, myriad new initiatives have enabled review of preprinted research to be coordinated, collected, and displayed alongside preprints. This provides evaluation and context for readers, as well as feedback for the authors. The processes behind preprint review are diverse and may differ from journal peer review, which can be a challenge for readers seeking to compare and interpret the reviews. To address this, the ASAPbio organized a working group that set out to define key features of preprint review processes. Here, we describe Preprint Review Features (PReF) as descriptors and provide an implementation guide. PReF captures the key elements of preprint review processes using 8 standard key-value pairs. PReF can serve within the descriptions of individual preprint review processes, and act as search filters on indexing services. Widespread adoption of PReF will promote understanding and categorization of preprint review and improve its discoverability.

There has been strong interest in preprint commenting and review activities in recent years. Public preprint feedback can bring benefits to authors, readers and others in scholarly communication, however, the level of public commenting on preprints is still low. This is likely due to cultural barriers, such as fear by authors that criticisms on their paper will bias readers, editors and evaluators, and concerns by commenters that posting a public critique on a preprint by a more senior colleague may lead to retribution. In order to help address these cultural barriers and foster positive and constructive participation in public preprint feedback, we have developed a set of 14 principles for creating, responding to, and interpreting preprint feedback. The principles are clustered around four broad themes: Focused, Appropriate, Specific, Transparent (FAST). We describe each of the FAST principles and designate which actors (authors, reviewers and the community) each of the principles applies to. We discuss the possible implementation of the FAST principles by different stakeholders in science communication, and explore what opportunities and challenges lie ahead in the path towards a thriving preprint feedback ecosystem.

The use of preprints, research manuscripts shared publicly before the traditional peer-review process, is becoming more common in the life sciences. Early career researchers (ECRs) benefit from posting preprints as they are shareable, citable, and prove productivity. However, the decision to preprint a manuscript involves a discussion among all co-authors, and ECRs are often not the decision-makers. Therefore, ECRs may find themselves in situations where they are interested in posting a preprint but are unsure how to approach their co-authors or advisor about preprinting. Leveraging our own experiences as ECRs, and feedback from the research community, we have constructed a guide for ECRs who are considering preprinting - to enable them to take ownership over the process, and to raise awareness about preprinting options. We hope that this guide helps ECRs to initiate conversations about preprinting with co-authors and encourage them to preprint their future research.

While peer review plays a central role in the evaluation and publication of research findings, there are a number of known challenges related to inefficiencies and lack of diversity in the peer review process at system level. Preprint review activities have received increasing attention in recent years and may provide avenues for addressing some of the current challenges in journal peer review. At a workshop during the Researcher to Reader conference in February 2021, we explored how preprint review activities could be made more complementary with journal review and leveraged to increase diversity in peer review. We summarize the discussions at the workshop covering the benefits and challenges of preprint review for different stakeholders, what a journal-compatible preprint review looks like, and the barriers and potential solutions to make preprint review more complementary with journal review.

Early career researchers (ECRs) are important stakeholders leading efforts to catalyze systemic change in the conduct and communication of science. Here, we summarize the outputs from a virtual unconventional conference (unconference), which brought together 54 invited experts from 20 countries with extensive experience in ECR initiatives designed to improve science. The event was focused on why ECRs are needed to improve science and the obstacles they face when trying to promote reform. Our discussions also highlighted the additional obstacles that ECRs in countries with limited research funding experience when working to improve the scientific system. We provide the lessons learned from successful ECR-led or ECR-focused initiatives and outline actions that individuals and organizations can take to further support ECRs who are working to improve research culture and practice.

We have seen a number of initiatives arise in recent years aiming to tackle concerns around the reproducibility of published findings. Researchers in the life sciences now have a number of tools at their disposal to boost the reproducibility of their science and preprints have emerged as an instrumental element within this toolkit. Preprints broaden the when, by whom and how of the review and feedback on research compared to the journal publication process, help address publication bias, and can play an important role as a vehicle towards open science practices. Preprints hold further untapped potential to close the gap between discovery and dissemination, and to accelerate the path to a more reproducible research ecosystem.

On January 20 and 21, 2020, ASAPbio, in collaboration with EMBL-EBI and Ithaka S+R, convened over 30 representatives from academia, preprint servers, publishers, funders, and standards, indexing and metadata infrastructure organisations at EMBL-EBI (Hinxton, UK) to develop a series of recommendations for best practices for posting and linking of preprints in the life sciences and ideally the broader research community. We hope that these recommendations offer guidance for new preprint platforms and projects looking to enact best practices and ultimately serve to improve the experience of using preprints for all.

Peer review is the defining feature of scholarly communication. In a 2018 survey of more than 11, 000 researchers, 98% said that they considered peer review important or extremely important for ensuring the quality and integrity of scholarly communication.

We describe here a unique transfer system based on a truncated form of the human linker histone H1F4 for the delivery of nucleic acids to a variety of cells. The efficiency of truncated histone H1.4F was assessed using both primary mammalian and immortalised insect and mammalian cell lines. Our results indicated that recombinant histone H1.4F was able to deliver DNA, dsRNA and siRNA in all cells tested. Quantitative analysis based on reporter gene expression or silencing of target genes revealed that the transfection efficiency of histone H1.4F was comparable to, or better than, liposome-based systems. Notably, the efficiency of histone H1.4F was associated with very low toxicity for transfected cells. The human H1.4F recombinant protein is easily purified in large-scale from bacterial lysates using inexpensive simplified processing. This versatile transfection system represents an important advance in the field of gene delivery and an improvement over earlier nucleic acid delivery methods.