Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

Study of the Influence of Preprint in bioRχiv for Peer Review and Acceptance Time of PLOS ONE

View ORCID ProfileHiroyuki Tsunoda, Yuan Sun, Masaki Nishizawa, Xiaomin Liu, View ORCID ProfileKou Amano
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.28.920546
Hiroyuki Tsunoda
1Tsurumi University, Yokohama, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Hiroyuki Tsunoda
  • For correspondence: hi.tsunoda@gmail.com
Yuan Sun
2National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Masaki Nishizawa
2National Institute of Informatics, Tokyo, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Xiaomin Liu
3National Science Library, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Kou Amano
4National Institute for Materials Science, Tsukuba, Japan
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Kou Amano
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

This study uses statistical methods to analyze the differences in peer review periods between the processes of preprint based on authors’ order of posting published papers in a given journal. For this purpose, we developed a web crawler that downloaded metadata from bioRχiv and PLOS ONE. The average publication rate of papers posted in bioRχiv accounts for 40.67% of the total thus far. These papers were published in 1,626 academic journals. The journal that published most of these papers was PLOS ONE. Analysis of Peer Review and Acceptance Time (PRAT) of papers published in journals via preprints revealed the timing of posting papers related to these intervals. The median of PRAT of f < s was 110 days, and the median of PRAT of s < f was 139.50 days. If the date order of publishing a paper is the posted date of the preprint before the date of submission to the journal, the PRAT tends to be shorter than when the date order of publishing a paper is the posted date of the preprint after the date of submission to the journal.

1 Introduction

Peer review is an important process that ensures the quality of a submitted paper [1][2][3][4]. However, this process has been widely criticized due to the delay introduced in publishing new findings [5][6][7][8][9]. Preprints have been attracting attention from researchers as a way of solving this issue [10]. It seems entirely possible, and perhaps inevitable, that the process of peer review will be shortened [11]. A preprint is a complete scientific manuscript uploaded by authors on a public server before formal review [12]. By posting papers on preprint servers, authors can publish draft manuscripts in a very short period after obtaining research results, and they can receive comments and advice on preprints from scientists worldwide. Preprints gained popularity around 30 years ago with the advent of arXiv, an open preprint server widely used in physics and mathematics [13][14][15][16]. Preprints were disseminated by authors over this period to bypass lengthy journal publication schedules [17][18]. Although scientists in other fields have been cautious in adopting the preprint mode of communication, the growth of preprint servers in chemistry and biology suggests that the acceptance of preprints in these may be mounting [19][20]. In recent years, some subject-specific preprint servers have been established. For instance, the website of bioRχiv, a biology preprint server, started in November 2013, it is becoming an increasingly popular platform for authors to share their work at a rate that increases almost monthly [21][22][23]. More than half of the works on the platform were published in journals with high citation frequency in the Web of Science Core Collection [24]. The journal with the most preprints is PLOS ONE [25]. It is a peer reviewed open access mega journal published by the Public Library of Science since 2006, and its scope encompasses the results of scientific research from any scientific or medical discipline [26][27][28].

This study uses statistical methods to analyze the differences in peer review periods between processes of preprint based on authors’ order of posting published papers in PLOS ONE.

2 Methods

First, this study investigated papers posted on bioRχiv. The web crawler visited every page on bioRχiv and downloaded metadata of the title, authors, published digital object identifier (DOI), posted date, and versions of a paper. If the paper was published, it would download the journal title and the published DOI. Next, the metadata was manually verified. The papers were matched with the PLOS ONE database using the keywords of published DOIs. Second, this study investigated articles published in PLOS ONE. The web crawler visited articles of PLOS ONE via bioRχiv and downloaded the received date, accepted date, and published date of these papers, following which metadata of bioRχiv and PLOS ONE was merged. Third, the Peer Review and Acceptance Time (PRAT) was defined as the difference in the numerical value between the accepted date and received date of published articles. The process of authors posting papers was divided into a pattern.

Variable declaration

Four variables were declared as follows: Lowercase italic f is the date when the author should have the posted paper appear for the first time in the preprint server. Lowercase italic l is the date when the author should have the posted paper appear for the last time in the preprint server. Lowercase italic s is the date when the author should have submitted the paper to the journal. Lowercase italic a is the date to have a paper accepted by a journal.

Variable definition

The PRAT of a paper x is days of a minus s; it is defined as equation (1). Embedded Image

3 Results and Discussion

3.1 Posted Papers

The number of papers posted on bioRχiv is increasing rapidly every month (43,812 from November 2013 to February 28, 2019).

Recently, more than 2,000 papers were posted each month, of which 17,818 were published. Most papers are published within six months. Figure 1 shows the status of published and unpublished papers posted on bioRχiv.

Figure 1:
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 1:

Published and Unpublished Papers Posted on bioRχiv

3.2 Published Journals

These papers were published in 1,626 academic journals. The journal (the number and share of these papers) that published most of these papers was PLOS ONE (902, 5.05%), followed by Scientific Reports ‒ Nature (881, 4.94%), eLife (866, 4.86%), Nature Communications (611, 3.43%), Bioinformatics (509, 2.86%), PNAS (487, 2.73%), PLOS Computational Biology (375, 2.10%), PLOS Genetics (333, 1.87%), Nucleic Acids Research (285, 1.60%), Genetics (283, 1.59%), etc. Figure 2 shows the top 20 journals by papers in bioRχiv. This study focuses on PLOS ONE, because it is the journal that has published the most papers.

Figure 2:
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 2:

Top 20 Journals by Papers in bioRχiv

3.3 Analysis of Papers

These results analyzed the process of posting in PLOS ONE via bioRχiv. The average publication rate of papers posted in bioRχiv accounts for 40.67% of the total thus far. However, from 2013 to 2017, the rate was between 58% and 77%. The journal posting the most papers was PLOS ONE. PLOS ONE has published 902 papers from bioRχiv, of which the document type of two papers was a correction. The PRAT of 900 papers in PLOS ONE were calculated according to equation (1). The shortest PRAT (minimum) was 7 days, the longest (maximum) was 562 days, the middle (median) was 116 days, Quartile 1 of PRAT was 82 days, and Quartile 3 of PRAT was 166 days. Figure 3 shows the status of these PRAT. The PRAT were tested because the curve in Figure 3 does not look like a normal distribution. The p-value of the Shapiro-Wilk test was around zero (<3.73e-25) and less than the 0.01 significance level. Consequently, according to the test, it cannot be stated that the analyzed data follow the normal distribution.

Figure 3:
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 3:

Peer Review and Acceptance Time of PLOS ONE

3.4 Process Order

If the difference in the numerical value between date α and date β of paper x is less than or equal to 7 days, but both days were defined as the same date, this case is expressed as α & β.

For example, when this condition is satisfied for the first posted date (f) and the submitted date (s) of paper x, it is defined as equation (2). Embedded Image

If the difference in the numerical value between date α and date β of paper x is greater than 7 days, α and β were defined as a different date, and if date α is earlier than date β, the equation is expressed as α < β. For example, when this condition is satisfied for the first posted date (f) and the submitted date (s), it is defined as equation (3). Embedded Image

Process orders of 900 papers have been calculated in equations (2) and (3); these have been divided into 18 patterns based on variables of f, l, s, and a. These were merged into three groups. Table 1 shows 18 patterns and 3 groups.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1:

Process order of three groups

The PRAT of PLOS ONE by every six months from July 2017 to Jun 2019 was 158, 171, 166, and 157 days. However, the PRAT of this study were pretty shorter than usual case. The median of PRAT of f < s was 110 days, and the median of PRAT of s < f was 139.50 days. The PRAT tends to be shorter than when the date order of publishing a paper is the posted date of the preprint after the date of submission to the journal.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2:

Statistical data of three groups

Figure 4 shows the status of three groups, which were tested because these did not appear to be a normal distribution. The p-values of the Shapiro-Wilk test of f & s, f < s, and s < f were around zero (<1.94e-14, <2.12e-13, and <6.95e-12) and less than the 0.01 significance level.

Figure 4:
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 4:

Peer Review and Acceptance Time of PLOS ONE (days)

Between f < s and s < f was compared because the two groups of authors exhibited different behavior. If the behavior of an author is f < s, the author could expect to receive comments and advice on papers from scientists worldwide before his/her paper is submitted to journals. However, if the behavior of an author is s < f, he/she cannot expect to receive these. Figure 5 shows the PRAT of the first posted date (f) before the submitted date (s) (f < s) and the PRAT of the submitted date (s) before the first posted date (f) (s < f). If the median of f < s is compared with the median of s < f, the test must use the Mann-Whitney U test because f < s and s < f did not present as a normal distribution. The p-value of the Mann-Whitney U test was around zero (<2.07e-7) and less than the 0.01 significance level. It is clear that the median of f < s is different from the median of s < f.

Figure 5:
  • Download figure
  • Open in new tab
Figure 5:

First Posted Date and Received Date

4. Conclusion

This study analyzed the PRAT of papers published in journals via preprints and it found that the timing of posting papers related to these intervals. If the date order of publishing a paper is the posted date of the preprint before the date of submission to the journal, the PRAT tends to be shorter than the date order of publishing a paper whose posted date of preprint is after the date of submission to the journal.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This work was supported by JSPS KAKENHI Grant Number JP19K12707, JP18K11597, and ROIS NII Open Collaborative Research 2019-(19FS02).

Footnotes

  • tsunoda-h{at}tsurumi-u.ac.jp, yuan{at}nii.ac.jp, nisizawa{at}nii.ac.jp, liuxm{at}mail.las.ac.cn, AMANO.Kou{at}nims.go.jp

REFERENCES

  1. [1].↵
    Catherine Mangan, Mark Pietroni, Denise Porter, 2016. “Being brave”: A case study of how an innovative peer review approach led to service improvement, J. Integr. Care., 24, 4, 201–213. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JICA-06-2016-0021
    OpenUrl
  2. [2].↵
    Joshua Russell, and Jack Armitage, 2006, Peer review effectiveness: An analysis of potential loopholes within the USA Peer Review Program, Manage. Auditing J., 21, 1, 46–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/02686900610634757
    OpenUrl
  3. [3].↵
    Brian Paltridge, 2013. Learning to review submissions to peer reviewed journals: how do they do it?, Int. J. Res. Dev., 4, 1, 6–18 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/IJRD-07-2013-0011
    OpenUrl
  4. [4].↵
    Fytton Rowland, 2002. The peer-review process, Learn. Publ., 15, 247–258. DOI: https://doi:10.1087/095315102760319206
    OpenUrl
  5. [5].↵
    Jacalyn Kelly, Tara Sadeghieh, and Khosrow Adeli, 2014. Peer review in scientific publications: Benefits, critiques, & a survival guide, EJIFCC. 25, 3, 227–243.
    OpenUrl
  6. [6].↵
    Kendall Powell, 2016. Does it take too long to publish research?, Nature, 530, 148–151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/530148a
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  7. [7].↵
    Martin Raff, Alexander Johnson, and Peter Walter, 2008. Painful Publishing. Science, 321, 5885, 36–36. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.321.5885.36a
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  8. [8].↵
    Solomon H. Snyder, 2013. Science interminable: Blame Ben?, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 110, 7, 2428–2429. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.201300924
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  9. [9].↵
    Ronald D. Vale, 2015. Accelerating scientific publication in biology, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 112, 44, 13439–13446. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1511912112
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  10. [10].↵
    Sarvenaz Sarabipour, Humberto J. Debat, Edward Emmott, Steven J. Burgess, Benjamin Schwessinger, and Zach Hensel, 2019. On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective, PLoS Biol. 17, 2, 1–12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151.
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  11. [11].↵
    Cecelia Brown, 2001. The e-volution of preprints in the scholarly communication of physicists and astronomers, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 52, 3, 187–200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999<::AID-ASI1586>3.0.CO;2-D
    OpenUrl
  12. [12].↵
    Jeremy M. Berg, Needhi Bhalla, Philip E. Bourne, Martin Chalfie, David G. Drubin, James S. Fraser, Carol W. Greider, Michael Hendricks, Chonnettia Jones, Robert Kiley, Susan King, Marc W. Kirschner, Harlan M. Krumholz, Ruth Lehmann, Maria Leptin, Bernd Pulverer, Brooke Rosenzweig, John E. Spiro, Michael Stebbins, Carly Strasser, Sowmya Swaminathan, Paul Turner, Ronald D. Vale, K. VijayRaghavan, and Cynthia Wolberger, 2016. Preprints for the liciences, Science 352, 6288, 899–901. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf9133.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  13. [13].↵
    Paul Ginsparg, 2011. ArXiv at 20, Nature 476, 145–147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/476145a
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMedWeb of Science
  14. [14].↵
    Stacy S. Wykle, 2015. Enclaves of anarchy: Preprint sharing, 1940-1990, Proc. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 51, 1, 1–15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/meet.2014.14505101036
    OpenUrl
  15. [15].↵
    Xuemei Li, Mike Thelwall, and Kayvan Kousha, 2015. The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication, Aslib J. Inform. Manag. 67, 6, 614–635. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/AJIM-03-2015-0049
    OpenUrl
  16. [16].↵
    Gerry McKiernan, 2000. arXiv.org: the Los Alamos National Laboratory e-print server, Int. J. Grey Lit. 1, 3, 127–138. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/14666180010345564
    OpenUrl
  17. [17].↵
    Patricia A. Kreitz, Louise H. Addis, Hrvoje Galic, and Thomas Johnson, 1997. The virtual library in action: Collaborative international control of high-energy physics pre-prints, Publ. Res. Q. 13, 24–32. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12109-997-0016-x
    OpenUrl
  18. [18].↵
    Michael A. Johansson, Nicholas G. Reich, Lauren A. Meyers, and Mark Lipsitch, 2018. Preprints: An underutilized mechanism to accelerate outbreak science, PLoS Med. 15, 4, 4–8. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1002549
    OpenUrl
  19. [19].↵
    Cecelia Brown, 2003. The role of electronic preprints in chemical communication: Analysis of citation, usage, and acceptance in the journal literature, J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 54, 5, 362–371. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/asi.10223
    OpenUrl
  20. [20].↵
    Leslie M. Loew, 2016. Peer review and bioRxiv, Biophys. J. 111, 3, 1–2. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2016.06.035
    OpenUrl
  21. [21].↵
    Richard J. Abdill and Ran Blekhman, 2019. Meta-research: Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all biorxiv preprints, Elife 8, 8, e45133. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45133.001
    OpenUrl
  22. [22].↵
    Leslie M. Loew, 2016. Peer Review and bioRxiv, Biophys J. 111, 3, E01–E02. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bpj.2016.06.035
    OpenUrlCrossRef
  23. [23].↵
    Marina Picciotto, 2017. Direct Submissions from bioRxiv, J Neurosci. 37, 2, 237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3812-16.2016
    OpenUrlFREE Full Text
  24. [24].↵
    Hiroyuki Tsunoda, Yuan Sun, Masaki Nishizawa, Xiaomin Liu, and Kou Amano, 2019. An analysis of published journals for papers posted on bioRXiv, Proc. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 56, 1, 783–784. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pra2.175
    OpenUrl
  25. [25].↵
    Kent R. Anderson, 2019. bioRxiv: Trends and analysis of five years of preprints, Learn. Publ. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/leap.1265
  26. [26].↵
    Joel Cummings, 2007. PLoS One, Reference Rev. 21, 7, 41–42. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/09504120710821767
    OpenUrl
  27. [27].↵
    Valerie Spezi, Simon Wakeling, Stephen Pinfield, Claire Creaser, Jenny Fry, Peter Willett, 2017. Open-access mega-journals: The future of scholarly communication or academic dumping ground? A review, J. Documentation 73, 2, 263–283. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-06-2016-0082
    OpenUrl
  28. [28].↵
    Simon Wakeling, Valerie Spezi, Jenny Fry, Claire Creaser, Stephen Pinfield and Peter Willett, 2019. Academic communities: The role of journals and open-access mega-journals in scholarly communication J. Documentation 75, 1, 120–139. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-05-2018-0067
    OpenUrl
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted February 05, 2020.
Download PDF
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Study of the Influence of Preprint in bioRχiv for Peer Review and Acceptance Time of PLOS ONE
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
Study of the Influence of Preprint in bioRχiv for Peer Review and Acceptance Time of PLOS ONE
Hiroyuki Tsunoda, Yuan Sun, Masaki Nishizawa, Xiaomin Liu, Kou Amano
bioRxiv 2020.01.28.920546; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.28.920546
Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
Study of the Influence of Preprint in bioRχiv for Peer Review and Acceptance Time of PLOS ONE
Hiroyuki Tsunoda, Yuan Sun, Masaki Nishizawa, Xiaomin Liu, Kou Amano
bioRxiv 2020.01.28.920546; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.01.28.920546

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Scientific Communication and Education
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (4397)
  • Biochemistry (9623)
  • Bioengineering (7118)
  • Bioinformatics (24928)
  • Biophysics (12651)
  • Cancer Biology (9984)
  • Cell Biology (14392)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (7982)
  • Ecology (12141)
  • Epidemiology (2067)
  • Evolutionary Biology (16019)
  • Genetics (10946)
  • Genomics (14772)
  • Immunology (9895)
  • Microbiology (23729)
  • Molecular Biology (9500)
  • Neuroscience (51034)
  • Paleontology (370)
  • Pathology (1544)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2690)
  • Physiology (4035)
  • Plant Biology (8687)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1512)
  • Synthetic Biology (2403)
  • Systems Biology (6452)
  • Zoology (1349)