Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Claude Pirmez - Fast communication: preprints, peer-review, continuous publishing


Published on

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.

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.

Published in: Science
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Claude Pirmez - Fast communication: preprints, peer-review, continuous publishing

  1. 1. Natural disasters Poor air quality Migration/diaspora Emerging/re-emerging diseases The unfinished XX century agenda and the challenges of the new millenium Environmental cost of food production Plague Yellow fever Smallpox Malaria Tuberculosis Flu Cholera
  2. 2. Science belongs to the society Knowledge is a public good >80% of research is publicly funded US$100 billion investments in research/year globally ↓ 1 million publications/year How much of the actual ideas have changed human health?
  3. 3. HIGH IF = I am good (really?) ACADEMIC POSITION PUBLICATION PEER RECOGNITION GRANTS The economy of prestige  Publish or perish  Misconduct  Reproducibility crisis  University rankings  Editorial business  Predatory journals Not that many....
  4. 4. Main reasons to adhere to open science • Reproducibility and research integrity • Transparency • Data reuse • quality and efficiency of science • Positive economic impact • Research equity Why publish as preprints? 1. Low cost 2. Fast publication (~24h) 3. MS receives a DOI 4. Primacy of the work 5. Interactive 6. Unlimited revisions Challenges • Infraestructure • Intelectual protection • Protection of sensitive/confidential data • Change of culture and scientific ecosystem • Skepticism/distrustfulness of the scientific community
  6. 6. The Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) EMBO Press F1000 Fondation Mérieux Fundação Oswaldo Cruz (Fiocruz) The Global Health Network Global Virus Network GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) The Institut Pasteur Instituto Butantan, Brazil Instituto Nacional de Salud, Peru International Severe Respiratory and emerging Infection Consortium (ISARIC) International Society for Infectious Diseases Japan Agency for Medical Research and Development (AMED) The JAMA Network The Lancet Médecins du Monde/Doctors of the World (MdM/DoW) Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) Microbide Limited National Academy of Medicine Signatories to the statement Academy of Finland Academy of Medical Sciences, UK Bernhard Nocht Institute for Tropical Medicine Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BBSRC) The British Medical Journal (BMJ) Bulletin of the World Health Organization Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation – Gulbenkian Science Institute Canadian Institutes of Health Research The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (to include Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report [MMWR]) Chinese Academy of Sciences Chinese Centre for Disease Control and Prevention The Department of Biotechnology, Government of India The Department for International Development (DFID) Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) eLife EcoHealth AllianceThe Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) EMBO Press National Institutes of Health, USA National Institute for Infectious Diseases Lazzaro Spallanzani (INMI), Italy National Science Foundation, USA The New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) PLOS ProMED Research Ideas and Outcomes (RIO) Journal The Rockefeller University Press The Royal Society SAB Biotherapeutics Science Journals ScienceOpen South African Medical Research Council Springer Nature Thieme Publishers UK Medical Research Council Universidade Jean Piaget de Capo Verde USAID Wellcome Trust ZonMw – The Netherlands Organisation for Health Research and Development
  7. 7. 47 submissions (<8%) 39 selected for analysis 23 accepted 15 not published 34.154 views, 17.738 downloads MS VIEWS DOWNLOADS CITATION WOS 110(4):2015 8080 1952 460 111(5):2016 3198 2068 80 111(6):2016 7098 1771 9 111(8):2016 1411 1256 5 111(9):2016 3260 2153 1 111(10):2016 1523 1315 55 111(12):2016 1065 758 7 112(5):2017 845 727 11 112(8):2017 669 425 5
  8. 8. EDITORS’ role o opportunity to present negative results o Clear methodology description and result presentation o Post-publication review o Open peer review (contributive) o Reviewer selection rigor o Reviewer training INSTITUTION’S role o Dialogue between scientists and society o Broadening of collaboration o Open discussion abour misconduct o Accuracy and rigorousness aiming reproducible results o Solid research process (beyond IF) Changing culture
  9. 9. Thank you! Gracias! Merci! Danke! Obrigada!