Who will influence the success of in biology and to what end?

Moderator: Naomi Penfold, Associate Director These slides: bit.ly/preprints-FORCE2019 DOI: 10.5281/zenodo.3515895 All slides are CC-BY ASAPbio or the panellist (see slide notes) 4:00pm | Intro

4:10pm | Panel perspectives

4:30pm | Discussion (including Qs & thoughts from you!)

4:50pm | Final reflections My background & biases Associate Director

PhD, University of Cambridge ●Community engagement ●Preprints & peer review: research, ●Clinical Biochemistry (Neuroscience) campaigns, outreach & information ●ECR issues ●Science policy 2016 Other commitments: ● Dryad Board of 2012 2018 Directors (2019-) ● PREreview advisory eLife committee (2018-) Events Coordinator & Innovation Officer ● CSCCE Community The information I am Engagement Fellow ●Science publishing presenting comes from 2019 (#CEFP2019) North American & ● & reproducibility European perspectives ●ECR issues ●Product and technology innovation ●Events and community building Who will influence the success of preprints in biology and to what end?

Dario Taraborelli Theo Bloom Amye Kenall Humberto Debat @ReaderMeter @TheoBloom @AmyeKenall @humbertodebat Science program Executive editor, Editorial director for Researcher, officer (open science), The BMJ & medicine and life National Institute of Chan Zuckerberg Co-founder, sciences journals, Agricultural Technology Initiative medRxiv SpringerNature (Argentina) ASAPbio is a biologist-driven non-profit working to make life sciences communication faster & more transparent through convening, community building, resource development and advocacy for preprints and published peer review Started this off!

We are… ASAPbio board

Naomi Penfold, Associate Director Ron Vale (Founder & President) [email protected] @npscience Cynthia Wolberger (Vice President) Jaime Fraser (Secretary & Treasurer) Jessica Polka, Executive Director Prachee Avasthi [email protected] @jessicapolka Phil Bourne Daniel Colón-Ramos Victoria Yan, Peer Review Registry Tony Hyman (#ReimagineReview) Coordinator Heather Joseph [email protected] @victoriayan_ Jennifer Lin

Kristen Ratan Harold Varmus Sign up to receive news asapbio.org/newsletter Dick Wilder (non-voting) Follow us @ASAPbio_ Join the conversation #ASAPbio With thanks to our funders and advisors Preprints are complete scientific manuscripts shared openly online before journal-organized peer review. “These people “2-3 (unnamed) did this at this community members time” have read it and think it’s ok” “Here’s what we “A journal editor did, please read!” thinks this is something you’d be interested in”

“Evaluators recognise this journal name as a mark of quality”

The research Submitted Peer review Journal process article “These people “A journal editor did this at this “# community thinks this is time” members (named and unnamed) have read it something you’d “Here’s what we be interested in” and have shared what “Evaluators did, please read!” they think about it” recognise this journal name as a mark of quality”

The research Submitted Peer review Journal process manuscript article = = = = , transparent Channels open protocols, peer review article for distinct open notebook audiences science Individual gain Collective gain What is your vision for success for preprints in biology?

Who will drive this success? Panellist 1: Dario

Support science and technology Accelerate biomedical science by that will make it possible to developing new tools and cure, prevent, or manage all technologies and supporting open, diseases by the end of the century collaborative models of research

81 years 10 years Preprints at CZI

1. Funding:

2. Technology: making preprints discoverable as 1st class citizens

3. Policy: mandating preprints for all our grantees

4. User Research: understanding attitudes and barriers to adoption Preprints: challenges and opportunities

● Strong organic growth in the life sciences ● Only 2.6% of the biomedical literature Preprints: challenges and opportunities

1. Preprints as the staging area for all research

2. Preprints as a vehicle for open science practices Panellist 2: Theo Competing interests

● I’m Executive Editor of The BMJ. It is published by BMJ, a wholly owned subsidiary of the British Medical Association. ● BMJ (the company) receives 8.7% of revenues from drug & device companies through advertising, reprint sales, & sponsorship. For The BMJ it’s 12%. The BMJ is an open access research journal that charges article-processing fees for Research Articles. ● I chair the Scientific Advisory Board of Europe PubMed Central. ● I am a founder of medRχiv clinical preprint server ● I am European Coordinator for the Peer Review Congress. ● I am on the Board of AIP Publishing medRχiv: a three-way (publisher-neutral) collaboration Why should anyone post a preprint?

What we say What they say (~4200, bioRχiv) Most submissions before (37%) or at the ● Speed up science same time (41%) as submission to journal ● Allow pre-publication peer review and

feedback, making ‘better’ articles ● Give authors precedence ● Freely available (not always ‘open’) ● Surface data that may not survive review

● Risk of incorrect information or conclusions that could harm individual or population health Risk mitigation

Is it nonsense? Is it non-science? Is it a paper? Is it research? Is it plagiarized? Is it a health threat? Is there a benefit to sharing now vs. after peer review?

Panellist 3: Amye Who am I (incl. competing interests)

-Editorial Director of Medicine and Life Sciences at Springer , mainly working with BMC branded journals and in open access

-Seconded part-time to Research Square to develop In Review, cross-publisher integrated preprint model

-Springer Nature has a minority share in Research Square

-Treasurer of FORCE11 Results not replicated Questions over the conclusion emerged as soon as the paper was published. Sean Harrison, an epidemiologist at the University of Bristol, UK, attempted to replicate the findings that night….. Food for thought - one small change?

● Opt in as part of submission process. ● 2% vs 35% opt in rate ● 89% of authors say it improved their publication experience Considerations for driving success of preprints

● The proposition of preprints is clear to most, but misconceptions/fears exist. ● How can preprints better speak to career advancement for researchers? ● Submitting yet another research object (article, data, preprint, code) might hinder uptake. ● How are preprints promoted? Found? Especially when China (a key market) doesn’t have access to Twitter. ● Long-term sustainability of preprints in the biological and medical sciences. ● Alignment on minimum standards for posting preprints ● As with all ROs, how can preprints be linked up to their related ROs, especially the peer-reviewed Version of Record Panellist 4: Humberto 20 44 2000 31 12 21 50 55 640 200 14000 410 0.62 57 42 60 85 37 34 1.5 550 52 3000 6.5 Discussion Inspired by Eve Tuck @tuckeve: https://twitter.com/tuckeve/status/ Before you ask... 1141501422611128320

3 minutes to share your thoughts with your neighbour. Let your voice be heard!

Before contributing a question or thought to the room, please consider:

1. Is it a question or statement that elevates or stimulates discussion? 2. If you could only ask or say one thing in this room, is this it? 3. Who is most important for you to listen to in this room? Who could you learn most from? Are you asking a question that helps them share? 4. Are you asking the responder to do work that you could do yourself? 5. Is it a question that is productive for all of us to hear right now?

Reflections

TRiP mechanism Consider what your vision is, who shares this & what power you have to pursue this.

Keep talking! Sign up to receive news asapbio.org/newsletter Follow us on Twitter @ASAPbio_ Join the conversation #ASAPbio