The following questions consider respondents opinions on the adoption of preprinting and open peer review by traditional journals
Question 16
To accelerate the dissemination of research, a journal could publish an article as a preprint at the start of the peer review process. When the journal receives revised versions of the article during peer review, it could update the preprint. Would you support this way of accelerating the dissemination of research?
Question 17
In addition to publishing intermediary versions of an article as a preprint, a journal could also publish the peer review reports for these versions. This gives readers of the preprint information about its strengths and weaknesses. Review reports would be published regardless of whether the journal accepts or rejects the article. Would you support this way of informing readers?
Question 18
Feel free to use this space to share thoughts regarding preprinting or the disclosure of peer review reports within journals.
The responses to this open question provided a range of opinions on preprinting and the disclosure of peer review reports within journals. Overall, the perspectives on preprinting and open peer review are mixed, with strong arguments for transparency, community engagement, and early dissemination, but significant concerns regarding quality, increased workload, potential for plagiarism, and negative impacts on careers and the peer review process. Here's a summary highlighting both positive and negative perspectives:
Positive perspectives
Transparency and Quality Improvement:
"Disclosure of peer review reports will increase the quality of reviews and prevent reviewers from pushing their agenda."
"It will increase the quality of the review process and provide a more comprehensive view of the strengths and weaknesses of the research."
Community Engagement and Early Feedback:
"Preprints can attract researchers with similar interests."
"A preprint might encourage relevant feedback to improve a text."
Accessibility and Dissemination:
"Preprints make research available quickly to the community."
"Since preprints can be accessed by anyone, this is one measure that can overcome the current situation in which the research available differs depending on the affiliation."
Learning and Training:
"An additional bonus of sharing the pre-print with the peer review reports is that junior researchers could read the peer reviews and thus learn to be better reviewers themselves."
Negative perspectives
Quality and Credibility Concerns:
"Preprinting will generate more low-quality material."
"A preprint is not an actual proved work by peer review process and it might lead to wrong results before it's approved."
Increased Workload and Burden:
"This would add to the workload of the editorial board, who are already overwhelmed."
Fear of Plagiarism and Idea Theft:
"I would be reluctant to do so due to the high opportunity for my work to be plagiarized or someone using my ideas which would then lead to my ideas not being considered novel anymore."
"Others may read my pre-print and publish first in some cases."
Bias and Unfair Criticism:
"Reviews can be very harsh and done by incompetent reviewers."
"Some reviews may be abusively aggressive or make comments out of the point."
Impact on Careers and Reputations:
"Publishing reviews could discourage submissions by other authors."
"If the comments are rough and the paper is rejected, I would not like review reports to be visible. This could be damaging to my career."
Confusion and Information Overload:
"Adding even more versions into circulation will just increase the level of noise in the system, and make it harder to find the material I'm looking for."
"Having various versions being 'published' may lead to confusion...particularly if these early versions get cited."
