Search

In advance of the Recognizing Preprint Peer Review meeting in December 2022, ASAPbio convened two Working Groups of different stakeholders to articulate the added value of incorporating preprint review into assessment processes, catalog potential uses of preprint review as part of assessment processes, develop working definitions for preprint review according to the needs of different stakeholders and discuss how policies and processes may be updated to incorporate preprint review. This report outlines the recommendations developed by the Working Group involving representatives of journals and preprint review projects.

In advance of the Recognizing Preprint Peer Review meeting in December 2022, ASAPbio convened two Working Groups of different stakeholders to articulate the added value of incorporating preprint review into assessment processes, catalog potential uses of preprint review as part of assessment processes, develop working definitions for preprint review according to the needs of different stakeholders and discuss how policies and processes may be updated to incorporate preprint review. This report outlines the recommendations developed by the Working Group involving researchers and representatives of funders and institutions.

Do you have a feeling that a lot is happening in the open data space? Then you are not alone. Over the last decade, I've touched on various parts of the open data world including from an editorial perspective and more recently in considering data publishing ethics. I am thrilled to be joining DataCite on June 1, 2023, to full -time focus on the adoption and recognition of open data.

Scott Edmunds is Editor-in-Chief at GigaScience Press, which has worked closely with DataCite since 2011, as part of the publisher’s commitment to open science and open data. Scott is a member of the Make Data Count advisory group and supports the initiative’s efforts to make it possible to evaluate the usage of data in the later steps of the data-sharing cycle, so that we can better assess the benefits of public sharing of data. In the interview below, Scott reached out to the new Make Data Count Director Iratxe Puebla to discuss Make Data Count and what’s coming next for the initiative.

This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/7352696. El preprint describe un estudio que analiza la calidad de sueño en una muestra de estudiantes de medicina en una institución de Cuba. El manuscrito reporta que una mayoría de los estudiantes sufren trastornos en la calidad del sueño sufridos, y que estos se asocian con ansiedad, trastornos psicológicos y una autopercepción de rendimiento académico medio-bajo. Incluyo debajo unas cuantas cuestiones y sugerencias: Introducción: Las referencias citadas respecto a calidad de sueño en estudiantes de otras carreras son estudios en los Estados Unidos, hay otros estudios en otras regiones (particularmente en Iberoamérica), ya que las exigencias de estudios de medicina y otros estudios superiores pueden variar de un país a otro. Introducción: Sería relevante señalar las lagunas de evidencia que se abordan con este estudio. Material y métodos: La muestra de 37 estudiantes es limitada, ¿se completó un cálculo del tamaño de la muestra antes del estudio para establecer una muestra mínima requerida para el análisis estadístico?¿Hay alguna información sobre si la muestra es representativa de la población de esta universidad o de los estudiantes universitarios del país? Material y métodos: La encuesta se realizó entre noviembre 2020 y febrero 2021, sería relevante incluir el motivo para utilizar este período de tiempo. Material y métodos: Por favor ¿se podría añadir referencia para el 'test de Pittsburg' utilizado, ha sido este traducido y adaptado al español? ¿Qué versión se utilizó? Añadir por favor también una referencia para el 'test de Hospital de ansiedad-depresión'. Material y métodos: Hay mención a consentimiento informado, sería relevante aclarar aclarar también si se buscó la aprobación ética para el estudio. Material y métodos: El cuestionario incluye el punto 'Diagnóstico de COVID-19', se puede añadir clarificación sobre la información que se colectó con este punto? Esto, es si se refiere a un diagnóstico de COVID-19 actual (en el momento de responder el cuestionario) o previo? Los resultados sobre rendimiento académico están basados en la percepción de los participantes y no tenemos referencia de cómo hubiese sido la respuesta antes de la pandemia. Dado esto, no estoy segura de que se pueda establecer un vínculo con la pandemia, la calidad del sueño o los problemas de salud mental, recomiendo ajustar el texto para aclarar este punto. El estudio es observacional y de corte transversal, por lo tanto no puede establecer un vínculo de causa-efecto, sólo una asociación. Se recomienda revisar el texto (en la introducción y la discusión) para asegurarse de que solo se describen asociaciones. Fortalecería la discusión del estudio si se puede añadir una breve discusión acerca de próximos pasos o posibles intervenciones sugeridas a partir de los resultados de este estudio.

These Tips and Tricks were collected as part of a virtual brainstorming event in September 2020 from participants with experience in initiatives aiming to improve science. This document is a supplement to the preprint "Empowering Early Career Researchers to Improve Science", which lists additional lessons learned.

This study investigates undergraduate students’ ability to use a rubric to complete a critical assessment of preprints (i.e., scholarly manuscripts that are publicly shared via an online server but may not yet have been formally peer-reviewed) to a suitable level of comprehensiveness and quality. We define quality of preprint assessment in terms of (a) usefulness for providing quality indicators for potential consumers of preprints (e.g. researchers, journalists, policy makers, members of the public), (b) usefulness for generation of meta-data that will support future automatized preprint screening and (c) usefulness as feedback to authors to aid in clarification and improvement of the research. Participants will complete the study as part of a 4th year undergraduate module assessment at Abertay University entitled ‘Language and the Early Years’. We will assess: (1) How easy it is for students to answer meta-data and evaluative questions on the rubric (through participant ratings about ease of use, and ability to complete the questions on the rubric) (2) Students’ accuracy in assessing a manuscript’s qualities (as compared to expert judgement provided by the instructors and expert members of the team) (3) Whether the knowledge required to answer meta-data and evaluation questions about different characteristics of a study is relevant for an overall evaluation of a manuscript’s quality.In other words, we assess if the ability to answer rubric questions accurately is related to the quality of students’ qualitative evaluations of a preprint—as measured through an essay where the students are asked to summarise the reviewed study in one paragraph and then justify their criticism and suggestions for improvement.

Supplemental materials for: A Guide to Preprinting for Early Career Researchers

A repository for a hackathon project (https://hackmd.io/@scibeh/Hyy1pHZFD) on creating a rubric for reviewing preprints.

TheFORCE11 Research Data Publishing Ethics Working Group, in collaboration with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), has developed policy template text for journals & publishers as well as repositories, in alignment with our Joint FORCE11 & COPE Research Data Publishing Ethics Working Group Recommendations.&nbsp

Slides from the panel discussion around ‘Preprint review - Addressing cultural barriers on the path for a more positive and inclusive review ecosystem’, as part of the NISO Plus 2022 conference.

Presentation deck used at FORCE2021 conference for a deep dive into the WG recommendations and panel of WG members sharing perspectives

This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/5767994. This PREreview is the result of a virtual, live-streamed preprint journal club organized and hosted by PREreview and ASAPbio Preprint Reviewer Recruitment Network. In their preprint, YC Hwang et al. characterize some of the biophysical and biochemical properties of extracts from the mushroom Agaricus bisporus. Using quantitative photometric assays, as well as a qualitative phytochemical assay, they determined the antioxidant activity, tyrosinase inhibition activity, and phytochemical composition of ethanolic extracts of A. bisporus. This characterization of the extract gives new insights into the phytochemical composition of A. bisporus. The motivation for the study is to explore new extracts for applications to UV-protection and/or melanin production inhibition. The study involves assays to test for radical scavenging, sun protection factor (SPF), and anti-tyrosinase properties of the ethanol extract of A. bisporus. The assays show that the extract absorbs in the UV spectrum, has antioxidant properties, and is a potent inhibitor of tyrosinase in vitro. The study reports quantitative assays to identify the total phenolic and flavonoid contents in the extract, and a qualitative phytochemical assay that shows the presence of terpenoids in the extract. In order to improve the quality of this work, we suggest a few changes outlined below. To emphasize the strength of the findings, we recommend to briefly talk in the introduction about A. bisporus, the current state-of-the art is regarding UV-protection compounds, including those employed in the industry, and those from natural sources, and the potential benefits of characterization studies of extracts for compound discovery. The link between the biochemical activity measured in the study and the eventual health applications as well as possible toxic effects on human health could also be made clearer. In the discussion, the authors could talk a bit about future experiments that could help further characterize these extracts and their potential biochemical activities. Major concerns and feedback While the study offers valuable information about the phytochemical characteristics of A. bisporus extract, the title, abstract, and introduction imply UV protective qualities relevant for human subjects or assessment of toxic effects of these extracts on human subjects, which are best assessed with in vivo or clinical experiments. We suggest revising the manuscript to prevent overreaching. One potential approach would be to narrow the introduction and give a slightly more technical and descriptive background of the mushroom (and why this species was chosen for the study) and its extracts in general and why they are important for novel compound discovery. In the discussion, the authors can connect their findings to future outlooks, like further characterization of the composition of the extract and its biochemical activities, or in vivo studies (including assessments of toxicity) to suggest how these compounds might actually be useful. More specifically, statements such as "further supporting the conclusion that A.bisporus mushrooms are superior tyrosinase inhibitors and thus hyperpigmentation or other melanin-related disorder correctors" could either be backed up with a comparison to the in vivo activity of kojic acid as well as other tyrosinase inhibitors—for example the "gold standard" (source) hydroquinone, or the statements toned down to better align to the data shown in this manuscript. In the absence of opportunities to conduct in vivo studies, an inclusion of activity difference between in vitro and in vivo activities for different typically used tyrosinase inhibiting compounds might help the readers understand the usefulness of the mushroom extracts. There is some confusion regarding the connection between the extract´s properties in tyrosinase inhibition and UV-induced-radical scavenging. From the introduction, it seems that both properties are connected, since the paragraph describing radical scavenging is immediately followed by the tyrosinase inhibition properties, both mentioning melanin. It can be misread that the inhibition of melanogenesis is UV-protecting. It could help to make a clear distinction between both properties, and that the interest comes from two very different applications (UV protection vs dark spot whitening). The authors could emphasize that the extract has a multitude of unknown compounds, some of which they think have UV-protecting properties (Fig.1 and Fig. 2), and other compounds that are inhibiting tyrosinase (Fig. 3). In order to establish the potential of the extracts for further investigation, it would be important to include positive controls in the tests, i.e., test the activity against that of a validated compound. For example, the DPPH radical scavenging assay could benefit from a positive control. In the Introduction and in the Materials and Methods, it would be important to back up statements and references to previous work and methodologies with relative citations in the literature. Minor concerns and feedback It would be valuable to perform a complete chemical characterization of the extracts, e.g., by HPLC and fractionation, to clarify whether the activity comes from a compound, a synergy of different compounds, vehicle etc. Analysis (LC/GC-MS) of the different fractions could help to precisely determine the active compound´s structure, and help other researchers benchmark their own extracts. We think that these experiments would significantly strengthen the conclusions of the work, but we recognize that such experiments may require equipment that may not be readily accessible to the researchers. The tables include comparisons to other results from the literature, but the manuscript also discusses how different methodologies for extract preparation could result in variability. It would be important to perform activity tests on extracts obtained through methodology as reported in literature. Results from the literature can then be compared in discussion, rather than in the tables. Other studies with the same mushroom and their findings can be taken as reference to support Author's claim. While the preprint includes replicates for the tyrosinase inhibition activity (Fig. 3), the manuscript could benefit from inclusion of replicates for other activity measurements. A statistical analysis of the measurements wherever appropriate would also help the reader to assess the significance of the measured quantities. It would be helpful to include more descriptive Figure and Table captions and labels. For example, Figure 6 needs labels for the rows, and units are missing from concentration measurements in Table 2. Furthermore, we recommend that figures are appropriately described in the results section as they appear in the manuscript. A key methodological reference for SPF determination does not seem to be the appropriate paper (Romulo et al., #14). Sources for the chemicals/reagents are not provided, but would help other researchers to reproduce the work. The format that mixes results and discussion may somewhat mask what the novel contribution is from the study. It may be worth considering a revision to the text to have a result-focused section that highlights the new data collected by the authors. We thank the authors for sharing their work as a preprint. We hope our feedback above will be helpful as they consider any revisions to the manuscript or future lines of work.

The increase in research data-sharing practices has highlighted a growing number of ethical challenges related to the sharing and publication of datasets. In order to support the stakeholders involved in the publication of research data, the FORCE11 Research Data Publishing Ethics Working Group, in collaboration with Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), has developed recommendations toward best practices forhandlingethical cases relatedto the sharing and publication of research data. The recommendations postedare available together as PDF "Recommendations for the handling of ethical concerns relating to the publication ofresearch data" or broken apart by categories of considerations. Each include background information, examples, and recommended workflows for cases that may arise during the review & publication processes or post-publication.&nbsp

The use of preprints for the dissemination of research in some life sciences branches has increased substantially over the last few years. In this document, we discuss preprint publishing and use in the life sciences, from initial experiments back in the 1960s to the current landscape. We explore the perspectives, advantages and perceived concerns that different stakeholders associate with preprints, and where preprints stand in the context of research assessment frameworks. We also discuss the role of preprints in the publishing ecosystem and within open science more broadly, before outlining some remaining open questions and considerations for the future evolution of preprints.

The scope of the Working Group is to develop recommendations for how data repositories, journal publishers, and institutions can handle ethical cases relating to the publication of research data, and steps to take if an ethical issue is confirmed after the publication of the dataset, or its submission for publication. We recognize that ethical considerations can arise at all stages of the research cycle, including research conceptualization, data collection and analysis, and publication, however, the recommendations in this document focus on the handling of issues related to the publication stage. The recommendations are outlined in relation to four types of concerns: Authorship & Contribution Conflicts, Legal & Regulatory Restrictions, Rigor, Risk. Each of the sections provides a description of the type of situations falling within each category, context on how the concerns may arise, and recommendations on how stakeholders can handle the concerns once the issue is raised to the attention of the data publisher. Published Refereed Current 14.a N/A Specification of criteria

Objective To perform a cost-effectiveness analysis of skin antiseptic solutions (chlorhexidine-alcohol (CHG) versus povidone iodine-alcohol solution (PVI)) for the prevention of intravascular-catheter-related bloodstream infections (CRBSI) in intensive care unit (ICU) in France based on an open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled trial (CLEAN). Design A 100-day time semi-markovian model was performed to be fitted to longitudinal individual patient data from CLEAN database. This model includes eight health states and probabilistic sensitivity analyses on cost and effectiveness were performed. Costs of intensive care unit stay are based on a French multicentre study and the cost-effectiveness criterion is the cost per patient with catheter-related bloodstream infection avoided. Patients 2,349 patients (age≥18 years) were analyzed to compare the 1-time CHG group (CHG-T1, 588 patients), the 4-time CHG group (CHG-T4, 580 patients), the 1-time PVI group (PVI-T1, 587 patients), and the 4-time PVI group (PVI-T4, 594 patients). Intervention 2% chlorhexidine-70% isopropyl alcohol (chlorhexidine-alcohol) compared to 5% povidone iodine-69% ethanol (povidone iodine-alcohol). Results The mean cost per alive, discharged or dead patient was of €23,798 (95% confidence interval: €20,584; €34,331), €21,822 (€18,635; €29,701), €24,874 (€21,011; €31,678), and €24,201 (€20,507; €29,136) for CHG-T1, CHG-T4, PVI-T1, and PVI-T4, respectively. The mean number of patients with CRBSI per 1000 patients was of 3.49 (0.42; 12.57), 6.82 (1.86; 17.38), 26.04 (14.64; 42.58), and 23.05 (12.32; 39.09) for CHG-T1, CHG-T4, PVI-T1, and PVI-T4, respectively. In comparison to the 1-time PVI solution, the 1-time CHG solution avoids 22.55 CRBSI /1,000 patients, and saves €1,076 per patient. This saving is not statistically significant at a 0.05 level because of the overlap of 95% confidence intervals for mean costs per patient in each group. Conversely, the difference in effectiveness between the CHG-T1 solution and the PVI-T1 solution is statistically significant. Conclusions The CHG-T1 solution is more effective at the same cost than the PVI-T1 solution. CHG-T1, CHG-T4 and PVI-T4 solutions are statistically comparable for cost and effectiveness. This study is based on the data from the RCT from 11 French intensive care units registered with www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01629550).

Περιέχει το πλήρες κείμενο