Free and open access, transparent assessment and dissemination of research in a fast, shared, collaborative, participative and clear manner for all of society are some of the principles of Open Science. The recognition and adoption of open research practices is growing, including new policies that increase public access to scholarly literature and encourage openness of codes and data sharing for its reproduction. Among these initiatives which are reconfiguring scientific communication, preprints have been consolidating themselves as a promising space for free, open and transparent knowledge, streamlining the editorial process. Preprints are the first formal step in making the manuscripts publicly available before being approved by a journal. The logics of publishing based on science guiding principles have always been in the decision-making power of the editor. From the choice of referees to the distribution of articles approved in publishing editions, the time management to publish keeping quality, periodicity and celerity regarding feedback on the output was always a challenge to editors. Moreover, this time management becomes an even greater challenge to the publishing process in Brazil, and in some parts of Latin America, whose journals’ management is mainly based on voluntary work. Given this scenario, initiatives that seek to make scientific communication faster and more transparent appear as solutions to the daily difficulties of scientific publishing, such as, for instance, preprints, continuous publication and open peer review. In view of this new reconfiguration of the editorial process, this panel aims to discuss the panorama of fast and transparent scientific communication, seeking to share experiences that have been developed that respond to the editorial demands on the management of time and quality of the papers published in scientific journals and, particularly, to support the development of the SciELO Program preprints policy. Syllabus The challenges of scientific publishing and editorial ethics regarding time management and quality; initiatives for fast research communication; metrics and alternative indicators of scientific visibility; preprints and continuous communication experience in the national and international scenario; editorial dynamics of preprints and its models in the market; the demands of the continuous publication flow; open modalities of peer review: peer-review, open peer-review, and crowd-based peer review; the spaces of fast communication in scholarly social platforms.

1. Preprints in the life sciences
Cultural change, funder policies, and peer review
2018-09-26
Jessica Polka (@jessicapolka)
Executive Director, ASAPbio (@ASAPbio_)
#ASAPbio
Original content
licensed under
CC BY
These slides: goo.gl/RTJJXa

2. Knowledge grows
only as fast as
shoulders to
stand on
Photo by calafellvalo - CC BY-NC-ND

3. Ron Vale (2015) http://www.pnas.org/content/112/44/13439
Publication in cell biology is taking longer and longer

4. ASAPbio is a 501(c)(3) promoting
transparency & innovation in life
sciences publishing

5. Emojis by Mozilla (CC BY 4.0)
Journal
1
Journal 2 Journal 3
Private
Public
Peer Review
Submit
Revise
Manuscript
Peer reviewed
paper
Revise
Community feedback, ideas, discussion
Months to
years
Preprints make work available almost immediately
Preprint server
<48 hrs
screening
process
@ASAPbio_ | #ASAPbio | @jessicapolka
•Permanent
•Versioned
•Citable

6. Preprints are widespread in other disciplines
• Founded in
1991
• >100,000
preprints
posted per
year*
*https://arxiv.org/help/stats/2016_by_area/index
@ASAPbio_ | #ASAPbio | @jessicapolka

7. Image compiled by Jeroen Bosman (@jeroenbosman) via Bianca Kramer (@MsPhelps)
Preprints for all disciplines, languages, & communities

8. Chart by Jordan Anaya, prepubmed.org

9. 3 (selected) benefits of preprinting
• Funder recognition
• Journal marketplace
• Feedback
#ASAPbio 9
Personal experiences with
preprints:
asapbio.org/preprint-
info/preprint-stories

10. Funders encouraging preprints as evidence of
productivity in grant applications & reports
Current list and links to policies at asapbio.org/funder-policies
@ASAPbio_ | #ASAPbio | @jessicapolka

11. Preprint servers as a marketplace for editors
“we now have a dedicated team of editors
who will focus on identifying [preprints]
that are potentially suitable for publication
in PLOS Genetics.” *
* Bringing PLOS Genetics Editors to Preprint Servers
Gregory S. Barsh, Casey M. Bergman, Christopher D. Brown,
Nadia D. Singh, Gregory P. Copenhaver
Published: December 1, 2016
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1006448 #ASAPbio

12. https://www.facebook.com/groups/853552931365745/permalink/1349684805085886/
https://osf.io/sgpe9/
Preprint feedback helps authors
#ASAPbio

14. Preprint feedback helps readers
@ASAPbio_ | #ASAPbio | @jessicapolka

15. Preprint feedback helps journals
“In addition, the journal reserves the right--but is not obligated--
to consider the comments made to manuscripts posted to
preprint servers and factor these comments into final decisions at
any stage of the peer review process.”
http://www.fasebj.org/site/misc/edpolicies.xhtml#Preprint_Submissions
@ASAPbio_ | #ASAPbio | @jessicapolka

16. New ways of evaluating preprints
Learn more
http://asapbio.org/preprint-journal-clubs
More details in
this spreadsheet

17. Preprint journal clubs
• Meaningful exercise: send
feedback to authors to improve
their paper
• Teach students how to write a
review
@ASAPbio_ | #ASAPbio | @jessicapolka
asapbio.org/support-preprints
Prachee Avasthi at the University of
Kansas Medical Center draws material
for her “Analysis of Scientific Papers”
course exclusively from preprint
servers. She’s generously shared
her syllabus and introductory slide
deck, and the students’ reviews can be
found on the Winnower.prereview.org

18. 131 journals commit to publishing peer reviews
#PublishPeerReview
asapbio.org/letter
Journal(s) Publisher Contact
Expected implementation
date
PLOS Biology PLOS Veronique Kiermer Q2 2019
PLOS Computational
Biology PLOS Veronique Kiermer Q2 2019
PLOS Genetics PLOS Veronique Kiermer Q2 2019
PLOS Medicine PLOS Veronique Kiermer Q2 2019
PLOS Neglected Tropical
Diseases PLOS Veronique Kiermer Q2 2019
PLOS ONE PLOS Veronique Kiermer Q2 2019
PLOS Pathogens PLOS Veronique Kiermer Q2 2019
Obstetrics & Gynecology Wolters Kluwer Health Rebecca Benner October 2018
Journal of Cell Biology
Rockefeller University
Press
Rebecca Alvania & Jodi
Nunnari Late 2018
Proceedings of the Royal
Society B Royal Society Spencer Barrett Early 2019
Development Company of Biologists Claire Moulton Early 2019
Journal of Cell Science Company of Biologists Claire Moulton Early 2019
4open EDP Sciences Claus Roll Early 2019
Molecular Biology of the
Cell ASCB David Drubin January 2019
Journal of Neuroscience
Research Wiley Eric Prager January 2019
Progress in Neurobiology Elsevier Bahar Mehmani Dec-18
Read article
Illustration by David Parkins

19. But...

20. Preprint adoption in perspective
How can we
increase
preprint
adoption
further?

21. The cycle of cultural change
Behavioral
intention
Adapted from Knott, Muers, Aldridge, 2008.
Achieving Culture Change: A Policy
Framework. UK Cabinet Office Strategy
Unit.
Behavioral
path
Behavior
Behavioral
drivers
Cultural Capital
(values/beliefs)
Behavioral
norm
@ASAPbio_ | #ASAPbio | @jessicapolka
Barriers &
incentives (journal,
university, funder
policies)
Sharing
early is
good
Deciding
to preprint

22. Ambassadors promoting preprint awareness
@ASAPbio_ | #ASAPbio | @jessicapolka
Please join us! asapbio.org/asapbio-
ambassadors

23. Resources at asapbio.org/preprint-info
Coming soon: resources
on preprint licensing

24. Thank you
• Ron Vale (Founder/President)
• Cynthia Wolberger (Vice President)
• James Fraser (Secretary & Treasurer)
• Prachee Avasthi
• Daniel Colón-Ramos
• Tony Hyman
• Heather Joseph
• Harlan Krumholz
• Harold Varmus
• Dick Wilder (non-voting)
@ASAPbio_ | #ASAPbio | @jessicapolka