Development, implementation and impact of a new preprint solicitation process at Proceedings B

Abstract

Preprints are manuscripts posted on a public server that do not yet have formal certification of peer review from a scholarly journal. The increasingly prominent online repositories for these preprints provide a means of rapidly making scientific results accessible to all with an Internet connection. We here describe the catalysis and subsequent development of a successful new process to solicit preprints for consideration for publication in Proceedings B. We present preliminary comparisons between the focal topics and geographic origin of submitting authors of papers submitted in the traditional (non-solicited) route versus solicited preprints. This analysis suggests that the solicitation process seems to be achieving one of the primary goals of the preprint solicitation endeavour: broadening the scope of the papers featured in Proceedings B. We also use an informal survey of the early-career scientists that are or have been involved with the Preprint Editorial Team to find that these scientists view their participation positively with respect to career development and knowledge in their field. The inclusion of early-career researchers from across the world in the preprint solicitation process could also translate into social justice benefits by providing a career-building opportunity and a window into the publishing process for young scientists.

Keywords: Proceedings B; Royal Society of London; early-career scientists; peer review; preprint.

Figure 1.

Overview of the preprint screening and solicitation process. Preprints from the bioRχiv server (1) are screened by subject area (2) by team members (3), who then submit their monthly recommendations (4). Decision whether to solicit recommendations is taken by the Preprint Editor (5), and invitations are sent to corresponding authors (6). If authors decide to submit their work to be considered for publication at Proceedings B, the manuscripts go through a standard peer review process (7), before eventual publication in the journal (8). (Online version in colour.)

Figure 5.

Our Preprint Editorial Team members at a glance. (a) Length of membership: although members come and go as their careers advance and new responsibilities arise, many participants are with us for a year or more. (b) Career stage: the bulk of our members are graduate students, some of whom continue to work with us after accepting postdoctoral or other professional positions. (c) Preprints handled: the number of preprints submitted to bioRχiv varies by month, and so does the number of preprints handled per team member. (d) Time commitment: although we provide a general framework for assessing preprints, each team and each member has their own strategy for assessing preprints. Regardless of strategy, members typically spend 2–5 h per month handling their assigned preprints. (Online version in colour.)

Figure 2.

(a) Overview of the numbers of invitation emails and solicited articles submitted and accepted in Proceedings B between September 2017 and January 2021. (b) Comparison between the proportion of accepted versus rejected papers between solicited (N = 96) and traditional (N = 11 583) submissions in the 2017–2020 period. A significantly higher proportion of solicited vs. traditional-route manuscripts were accepted for publication (see text for details). (Online version in colour.)

Figure 3.

Percentage of traditional (N = 11 583) and solicited (N = 96) submissions across topical areas covered by Proceedings B. Total sums for each type are greater than 100% because authors can choose greater than one topic category per paper. (Online version in colour.)

Figure 4.

Percentage of submitting authors from traditional (N = 11 583) and solicited (N = 96) submissions across 20 countries all represented at 1% or greater of traditional submissions along with a pooled category for authors from countries outside of these 20. (Online version in colour.)