Considering campaigns to post journal reviews on preprints. (n.d.). ASAPbio. Retrieved April 29, 2022, from https://asapbio.org/considering-campaigns-to-post-journal-reviews-on-preprints

Mullins, M. (2021, November 1). Opinion: The Problem with Preprints. The Scientist Magazine®. https://www.the-scientist.com/critic-at-large/opinion-the-problem-with-preprints-69309

News ·, A. M. · C. (2022, January 15). Canadian COVID-19 vaccine study seized on by anti-vaxxers—Highlighting dangers of early research in pandemic | CBC News. CBC. https://www.cbc.ca/news/health/covid-19-vaccine-study-omicron-anti-vaxxers-1.6315890

Sharma, M., Scarr, S., & Kell, K. (n.d.). Speed Science. Reuters. Retrieved August 19, 2021, from https://graphics.reuters.com/CHINA-HEALTH-RESEARCH/0100B5ES3MG/index.html

u/dawnlxh. (2021). Reviewing peer review: does the process need to change, and how?. r/BehSciAsk. Reddit

Nicola Low #EveryDayCounts #StillFBPE on Twitter. (2020). Twitter. Retrieved 27 February 2021, from https://twitter.com/nicolamlow/status/1336958661151821825

ReconfigBehSci on Twitter. (2020). Twitter. Retrieved 27 February 2021, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1339855911796543488

Yesilada, M., Holford, D. L., Wulf, M., Hahn, U., Lewandowsky, S., Herzog, S., Radosevic, M., Stuchlý, E., Taylor, K., Ye, S., Saxena, G., & El-Halaby, G. (2021). Who, What, Where: Tracking the development of COVID-19 related PsyArXiv preprints. PsyArXiv. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/evmgs

An easy access dashboard now provides links to scientific discussion and evaluation of bioRxiv preprints. (n.d.). Retrieved 30 May 2021, from https://connect.biorxiv.org/news/2021/05/14/dashboard .

ReconfigBehSci on Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved 1 March 2021, from https://twitter.com/SciBeh/status/1354456391772229632

PREreview, Daniela Saderi, Ph D. , Co-Founder and Director of. ‘Crowdsourcing Preprint Reviews: PREreview and COS Call for Feedback on Infrastructure Integration’. Accessed 2 October 2020. https://www.cos.io/blog/prereview-and-cos-call-for-feedback-on-infrastructure-integration.

Outbreak Science Rapid PREreview • Dashboard. (n.d.). Retrieved September 11, 2020, from https://outbreaksci.prereview.org/dashboard?q=COVID-19&q=Coronavirus&q=SARS-CoV-2

r/BehSciMeta—No appeasement of bad faith actors. (n.d.). Reddit. Retrieved June 2, 2020, from https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciMeta/comments/gv0y99/no_appeasement_of_bad_faith_actors/

Schalkwyk, M. C. I. van, Hird, T. R., Maani, N., Petticrew, M., & Gilmore, A. B. (2020). The perils of preprints. BMJ, 370. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m3111. https://t.co/qNPLYCeT99?amp=1

Besançon, L., Peiffer-Smadja, N., Segalas, C., Jiang, H., Masuzzo, P., Smout, C., Deforet, M., & Leyrat, C. (2020). Open Science Saves Lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic. BioRxiv, 2020.08.13.249847. https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.08.13.249847

Michael Eisen on Twitter: “A core problem in science publishing today is that we have a system where the complex, multidimensional assessment of the rigor, validity, utility, audience and impact of a work that emerges from peer review gets reduced to a single overvalued ‘accept/reject’ decision.” / Twitter. (n.d.). Twitter. Retrieved August 10, 2020, from https://twitter.com/mbeisen/status/1291752487448276992

COVID-19, preprints, and the information ecosystem. (n.d.). Retrieved June 17, 2020, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yWi4Q5rZiO0

Mis-allocated scrutiny. (2020, June 24). The 100% CI. http://www.the100.ci/2020/06/24/mis-allocated-scrutiny/

Lindsay, D. S. (2020, May 29). Enhancing Peer Review of Scientific Reports. Psychonomic Society Featured Content. https://featuredcontent.psychonomic.org/enhancing-peer-review-of-scientific-reports/

Holcombe, A. (2020, May 25). As new venues for peer review flower, will journals catch up? Psychonomic Society Featured Content. https://featuredcontent.psychonomic.org/as-new-venues-for-peer-review-flower-will-journals-catch-up/

Heathers, J. (2020, May 21). Preprints Aren’t The Problem—WE Are The Problem. Medium. https://medium.com/@jamesheathers/preprints-arent-the-problem-we-are-the-problem-75d29a317625

Daniël Lakens on Twitter

Bajak, A., & Howe, J. (2020, May 14). Opinion | A Study Said Covid Wasn’t That Deadly. The Right Seized It. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/14/opinion/coronavirus-research-misinformation.html

Lakens, D. (2020). Pandemic researchers—Recruit your own best critics. Nature, 581(7807), 121–121. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-020-01392-8

Munafo, M. (n.d.). What you need to know about how coronavirus is changing science. The Conversation. Retrieved May 6, 2020, from http://theconversation.com/what-you-need-to-know-about-how-coronavirus-is-changing-science-137641

Google Doc. COVID-19 Preprint Tracker

A subtle but important point here is that when the manuscript is a preprint then there are two public-facing documents that are being tied together-- the "published" article and the preprint. The review-as-annotation becomes the cross-member in that document association.

Conduct prepeer review during the manuscript development on a web platform. That is what is happening in Therapoid.net.

Crowdsourcing review? Prepeer review as precursor to preprint server.

Why should we respect a preprint? I'm not sure that we should respect anonymously peer reviewed journal articles as much as we do. It's important to remain critical, and I worry that trying to put a veneer of 'respectability' over preprints is not as helpful as expecting people to read them to judge content.

This statement is a misunderstanding of Powell 2016, which states:

At Nature, the median review time has grown from 85 days to just above 150 days over the past decade, according to Himmelstein's analysis.

However,

the median review time — the time between submission and acceptance of a paper — has hovered at around 100 days for more than 30 years.

So while the median review time at Nature has gone from 85 to 150 days, this is not the case for all journals. See also the related Tweet.