Journal Information
Journal ID (publisher-id): BM
Journal ID (nlm-ta): Biochem Med (Zagreb)
Title: Biochemia Medica
Abbreviated Title: Biochem. Med. (Zagreb)
ISSN (print): 1330-0962
ISSN (electronic): 1846-7482
Publisher: Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine
Article Information
Copyright statement: ©Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry and Laboratory Medicine.
Copyright: 2021, Croatian Society of Medical Biochemistry
License (open-access):
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Date received: 27 October 2020
Date accepted: 05 February 2021
Publication date (electronic): 15 April 2021
Publication date (print): 15 June 2021
Volume: 31
Issue: 2
Electronic Location Identifier: 020201
Publisher ID: bm-31-2-020201
DOI: 10.11613/BM.2021.020201
Analysis of single comments left for bioRxiv preprints till September 2019
Joseph Costello[2]
Lauren A. Maggio[2]
[1] Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, San Francisco, USA
[2] Uniformed Services University of the Health Sciences, Bethesda, Maryland, USA
[3] Scholarly Communications Lab, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
[4] School of Publishing, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
Author notes:
[*] Corresponding author: mario.malicki@mefst.hr
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: preprint; preprints as topic; comment; peer review; scientific misconduct
