Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2021 Jun 15;31(2):020201.
doi: 10.11613/BM.2021.020201. Epub 2021 Apr 15.

Analysis of single comments left for bioRxiv preprints till September 2019

Mario Malički  1 , Joseph Costello  2 , Juan Pablo Alperin  3   4 , Lauren A Maggio  2
Affiliations
Review

Analysis of single comments left for bioRxiv preprints till September 2019

Mario Malički et al. Biochem Med (Zagreb). .

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.

Keywords: comment; peer review; preprint; preprints as topic; scientific misconduct.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Potential conflict of interest None declared.

References

    1. Malički M, Jerončić A, Ter Riet G, Bouter LM, Ioannidis JP, Goodman SN, et al. Preprint Servers’ Policies, Submission Requirements, and Transparency in Reporting and Research Integrity Recommendations. JAMA. 2020;324:1901–3. 10.1001/jama.2020.17195 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Chiarelli A, Johnson R, Pinfield S, Richens E. Accelerating scholarly communication: the transformative role of preprints. Zenodo. 2019, Sept 24. Available at: https://zenodo.org/record/3357727#.X8_5VthKhPY. Accessed December 8th 2020.
    1. Patrias K, editor. Manuscripts and preprints. In Patrias K, ed. Citing medicine: the LM style guide for authors, editors and publishers. 2nd ed. Available at: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK7264/. Accessed December 8th 2020. https://doi.org/ 10.26641/1997-9665.2020.1.62-66 - DOI
    1. 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. Res Integr Peer Rev. 2020;5:16. 10.1186/s41073-020-00101-3 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. 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 2020.05.22.111294 [Preprint]. 2020 [cited 2020 Dec 8]. Available at: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.22.111294v3. https://doi.org/ 10.1101/2020.05.22.111294 - DOI - DOI