Man, one of the most depressing aspects of modern scholarship is finding a great article and then looking up the scholar to see what else they’ve done and just catching a glimpse of an abbreviated career hopping between visiting positions and publishing great pieces before disappearing from academia
I'd be less vocally against PRC if it (as a movement) wasn't behaving so closed, insular and refusing to engage with criticism. From my perspective it's been highly anti open and anti scientific.
I also think the focus of PRC on peer review is dated & not forward looking. Again, independent review is something I support especially where there are genuine experiments (something else lacking I'd argue) but the fixed work flow is problematic as are some of those involved (behaviour wise)
I agree and I'm not saying independent review is bad. But I do think the fixed work flow of PRC is a long term negative that is being pushed with unstated but obvious CoIs and a lack of consideration for unintended effects.
but again, more on that in some of these op-eds I'm working on. I tried raising concerns more quitely/internally but I found the PRC movement in particular to be very resistant to critique or self reflection (another significant issue)
Not to mention the splitting of funds, attention and resources that all of this fragmentation causes. I really don't think we needed a whole new acronym and effort for PRC - it just causes yet more confusion for researchers and I do feel this one was primarily to benefit individual actors
I see a situation where we end up with
Preprint (funder/institutions) -> article review charge (authors) -> article curation/processing charge (funder/institutions)
Funders are going to be charged at every level, depleting funds for research. Libraries also get hit hard too.
And PRC efforts to separate review and curation into separate steps needs funding from somewhere with review charges already having been suggested, naturally that leads to curation charges too (direct or not)
e.g.
It probably needs a more nuanced discussion (and I'm writing a few op-ed type pieces on what I view as the dangers and damge of the PRC effort).
I agree that if you post preprints then review/curation occurs later but this is what happens rights now. I preprint then a journal reviews/curates no?
"Preprint servers are a time machine, they move everyone forward 12 months and speed up the exchange of ideas"
ht @pedrobeltrao.bsky.social www.evocellnet.com/2021/06/a-no...
Also, isn't this what eLife does (they are a journal still, not a review service)? They charge a flat fee which is effectively for peer reviewing the article.
I can see some of the preprint review services introducing charges as it's just not sustainable to rely on libraries and funders
This is exactly what PRC is going to lead to (as I'be been saying for a long time now).
We also really need to ask if peer review (& all the delay, cost & effort involved) is actually the best way forward. It's great for author feedback but we can surface better/more modern signals of trust
Thing is this is one of the few "jobs" that people can get. The job market is brutal - not helped by the behaviour of some employers.
I've not done this but my savings are vanishing rapidly and I've applied for a lot of jobs at this point.
Meant to send all of that from this account...🤷♂️
There are a lot of preprint servers to choose from. So which one is best for your next preprint?
Our latest video answers this very question and gives you an evidence-based route towards choosing the best server for you: youtu.be/5rFegw8FPGE?...
Love this. I have a play the APC right game (based on play your cards right) but it's designed for in person atm.
Top down approaches are necessary but must occur in conjunction with exceptionally strong grassroots advocacy.
This is perhaps the clearest message from my years of experience and the conversations I’ve had. It is reflected in data and I sincerely hope the preprint space can get back on this track
Indeed, many conversations I’ve had with researchers about open science more broadly have surfaced a lot of negative views and opinions, which the space must face up to.
These range from issues with decisions being made, lack of adherence to values/real change and the hypocrisy of some advocates
As my recent report outlines, preprinting really is at a crossroads. Without some very tough discussions, a much greater effort to be inclusive and bring in diverse views, and better education, engagement and advocacy efforts, I think the movement is really going to struggle and stall further.
However, the flip side to being passionate is that things can also become personal. Over the past year I’ve allowed that to happen and the personal toll has simply become too high now. This is a space that I don't feel comfortable operating within anymore, sadly.
It was a great privilege to be able to work on something I’m so passionate about. I’ve gotten to collaborate and interact with some fantastic people who really are working to make academia and publishing a better place.
I’m going to be stepping away from the preprint space and advocating for preprint adoption for the foreseeable future.
This includes all social media too. I'm taking a long digital detox.
To get through this thing called life...
Things have definitely gotten crazy.
I'm going to be focusing more on trust indicators and moving beyond peer review this year :)
Over the last 4 months I've out-produced and out-performed other advocacy orgs in the preprint space - all without any funding at all and entirely on my own.
The potential for meaningful change with the resources of a position and institution/funding is immense.
You would be getting one of the world's leading experts in preprints/open science, which, in such a position, could make you one of the leading institutions for open science practices!
Don't just hire another admin person - hire someone who already has a deep and strong reputation in the space
I've just released a huge report on the state of preprints (zenodo.org/records/1832...), have extensive experience across academia, open science and research culture.
I'm actively searching for roles along the lines of "head of open research/science" across the UK or globally (working from home).
#academicchatter #preprints #openscience #job
And on the back of this....I'd make a fantastic head of open science/research somewhere.
You'd be getting one of the world leading experts in open science, with strong connections to active researchers. Together we could make your institution the leader in open science in the UK...
Just sayin :)
Thanks to @altmetric.com for providing data access for some of this and huge thanks to @openrxiv.bsky.social for making their APIs so usable and data public!
This takes a really deep dive into @biorxivpreprint.bsky.social in addition to some @europepmc.org data & Open Alex
