Abstract
AbstractWhile early commenting on studies is seen as one of the advantages of preprints, the nature of such comments, and the people who post them, have not been systematically explored. We analysed comments posted between 21 May 2015 and 9 September 2019 for 1,983 bioRxiv preprints that received only one comment. Sixty-nine percent of comments were posted by non-authors (n=1,366), and 31% by preprint authors (n=617). Twelve percent of non-author comments (n=168) were full review reports traditionally found during journal review, while the rest most commonly contained praises (n=577, 42%), suggestions (n=399, 29%), or criticisms (n=226, 17%). Authors’ comments most commonly contained publication status updates (n=354, 57%), additional study information (n=158, 26%), or solicited feedback for the preprints (n=65, 11%). Our study points to the value of preprint commenting, but further studies are needed to determine the role that comments play in shaping preprint versions and eventual journal publications.
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Reference42 articles.
1. The prehistory of biology preprints: A forgotten experiment from the 1960s
2. Rittman M . Preprint Servers. 2018. Available from: http://researchpreprints.com/.
3. Pre-print servers: pushing the envelope of electronic scholarly publishing;Searcher,2000
4. Lin J . Preprints growth rate ten times higher than journal articles: Crossref.org; 2018 updated September 11 2018. Available from: http://www.crossref.org/blog/preprints-growth-rate-ten-times-higher-than-journal-articles/.
5. Anaya J . Monthly Statistics 2018. Available from: http://www.prepubmed.org.
Cited by
6 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献