The DOI matches its Crossref record.
From amazing work to I beg to differ - analysis of bioRxiv preprints that received one public comment till September 2019
Open accessPreprint — published as 10.11613/bm.2021.020201 · Paper page
Abstract
INTRODUCTION: While early commenting on studies is seen as one of the advantages of preprints, the type of such comments, and the people who post them, have not been systematically explored. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We analysed comments posted between 21 May 2015 and 9 September 2019 for 1983 bioRxiv preprints that received only one comment on the bioRxiv website. The comment types were classified by three coders independently, with all differences resolved by consensus. RESULTS: Our analysis showed that 69% of comments were posted by non-authors (N = 1366), and 31% by the preprints' authors themselves (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%). CONCLUSIONS: Our results indicate that comments posted for bioRxiv preprints may have potential benefits for both the public and the scholarly community. Further research is needed to measure the direct impact of these comments on comments made by journal peer reviewers, subsequent preprint versions or journal publications.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
An analysis of all bioRxiv comments from September 2019 found a very limited number of peer-review style comments.
“However, an analysis of all bioRxiv comments from September 2019 found a very limited number of peer-review style comments [43].”
From The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape (2021) · cites this paper as [43]
The Results report that 168 non-author comments (12%) were full peer-review-style reports, supporting the claim that these were a limited share. But the Methods and Data collection sections say the analysis covered only preprints with a single public comment posted by 9 September 2019, not all bioRxiv comments from September 2019. (LLM, conf=0.89)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 31
- 10.1371/journal.pbio.2003995 · DOI · Paper page
- Rittman M . Preprint Servers. 2018. Available from: http://researchpreprints.com/.
- 2000, Pre-print servers: pushing the envelope of electronic scholarly publishing, Searcher, 8, 53
- 2018, Altmetric Scores, Citations, and Publication of Studies Posted as Preprints, JAMA, 319, 402, 10.1001/jama.2017.21168 · DOI
- 2015, The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication, Aslib journal of information management., 67, 614, 10.1108/AJIM-03-2015-0049 · DOI
- 2018, Citation Count Analysis for Papers with Preprints, arXiv preprint
- 2014, arXiv E-prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships, Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology., 65, 1157, 10.1002/asi.23044 · DOI
- 2017, Preprints na comunicação científica da Física de Altas Energias: análise das submissões no repositório arXiv (2010-2015), Perspectivas em Ciência da Informação., 22, 104, 10.1590/1981-5344/2830 · DOI
- 2019, Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions, International Journal on Digital Libraries., 20, 335, 10.1007/s00799-018-0234-1 · DOI · Paper page
- Carneiro CFD , Queiroz VGS , Moulin TC , Carvalho CAM , Haas CB , Rayêe D , et al. Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature. bioRxiv. 2020:581892. · DOI · Paper page
- Fraser N , Brierley L , Dey G , Polka JK , Pálfy M , Coates JA . Preprinting a pandemic: the role of preprints in the COVID-19 pandemic. bioRxiv. 2020. · DOI
- 2020, Tracking the Twitter attention around the research efforts on the COVID-19 pandemic, arXiv preprint
- Malički M , Jeroncic A , ter Riet G , Bouter LM , Ioannidis JP , Goodman SN , et al. Preprint servers’ recommendations for transparency and research integrity: a cross-sectional study across scientific disciplines. 2020.
- Chiarelli A , Johnson R , Pinfield S , Richens E . Preprints and Scholarly Communication: Adoption, Practices, Drivers and Barriers [version 1; peer review: 2 approved with reservations]. F1000Research. 2019;8(971). · DOI
- Malički M . Preprint Observatory. 2020. http://data.mendeley.com/datasets/zrtfry5fsd/4.
- bioRxiv. bioRxiv API (beta). Disqus Comments. API Summary. Available from: http://connect.biorxiv.org/api/disqus/help.
- 10.1177/00131640121971239 · DOI
- Narayanan V , Utomo WK , Bruno MJ , Peppelenbosch MP , Konstantinov SR . Bacterial invasion of the pancreas revealed after analyses of the pancreatic cyst fluids. bioRxiv. 2016:064550. · DOI
- NCBI Insights Internet2018. Available from: http://ncbiinsights.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2018/02/01/pubmed-commons-to-be-discontinued/.
- 2020, Assessing the risks of“ infodemics” in response to COVID-19 epidemics, arXiv preprint
- COVID-19 SARS-CoV-2 preprints from medRxiv and bioRxiv 2020. Available from: http://connect.biorxiv.org/relate/content/181.
- 2017. Available from: http://elifesciences.org/labs/57d6b284/prereview-a-new-resource-for-the-collaborative-review-of-preprints.
- 2019. Available from: http://www.embo.org/news/press-releases/2019/review-commons-a-pre-journal-portable-review-platform.html.
- Heidt A . 2020. Available from: http://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/new-journal-to-publish-reviews-of-covid-19-preprints-67675.
- Lobo MP . A do-it-yourself overlay journal. 2019. · DOI
- 2019, Meta-Research: Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints, eLife, 8, e45133, 10.7554/eLife.45133 · DOI · Paper page
- Fu DY , Hughey JJ . Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations. bioRxiv. 2019:699652. · DOI
- 10.1186/s12916-019-1347-0 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1371/journal.pone.0014331 · DOI · Paper page
- Malički M , Alperin JP . 2020. Available from: http://www.scholcommlab.ca/2020/04/08/preprint-recommendations/.
- 2019, Tools used to assess the quality of peer review reports: a methodological systematic review, BMC Medical Research Methodology., 19, 48, 10.1186/s12874-019-0688-x · DOI · Paper page
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fraser, N., Brierley, L., Dey, G., Polka, J. K., Pálfy, M., Nanni, F., & Coates, J. A. (2021) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959 · Cited by 555
Metadata
- Authors
- Malički, M., Costello, J., Alperin, J. P., & Maggio, L. A.
- Affiliations
- Stanford University (US)
- Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences (US)
- Corresponding author
- Malički, Mario
- Venue
- Biochemia Medica
- Publisher
- openRxiv
- Published
- 2020-10-15
- Volume
- 31
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 177-184
- ISSN
- 1330-0962 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8047782
- OpenAlex
- W3154742788
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 6
- FWCI
- 6.40
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- diamond
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Biochemia Medica (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- University of Zagreb University Computing Centre (SRCE) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- Funders
- U.S. Department of Defense
- Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Keywords
- bioRxiv, preprints, online comments, comment analysis, peer review, scholarly communication
- MeSH terms
- Preprints as Topic, Humans, Publishing, Biomedical Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
