# Developing preprints in developmental biology

Sandra Franco-Iborra, Pablo Ranea-Robles, Lonni Besançon, Jonathon Alexis Coates

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

## To cite this version:

Sandra Franco-Iborra, Pablo Ranea-Robles, Lonni Besançon, Jonathon Alexis Coates. Developing preprints in developmental biology. 2024. hal-04790751

HAL Id: hal-04790751

https://hal.science/hal-04790751v1

Submitted on 19 Nov 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
# Developing preprints in developmental biology

Authors:

Sandra Franco-Iborra (ASAPbio Community Lead), https://orcid.org/0000-0001-7385-657X

Pablo Ranea-Robles (Postdoctoral Fellow, Novo Nordisk Foundation Center for Basic Metabolic Research at the University of Copenhagen),

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6478-3815

Lonni Besancon (Assistant Professor, Linköping University),

https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7207-1276

Jonathon Alexis Coates (Associate Director, ASAPbio),

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9039-9219

## Introduction

Scientific publishing is experiencing a [reckoning] [1]; scientists are [resigning] [2] across a wide range of editorial boards, the dominance of traditional publishers has been [successfully challenged], open access has revolutionized publishers' business models, there's a lack of trust in science and preprints are on the [rise] [3]. Preprints (manuscripts shared prior to journal-organised peer review) offer an opportunity to transform scholarly communication into a system that places science and society first in addition to alleviating many of the issues we currently face.

## Brief history of preprints in the life sciences

Although the fields of physics and mathematics are often credited as the origins of preprinting, the practice actually began in the 1960's with biology focussed [NIH information exchange_groups] (IEGs) [4]. However, this initiative faced opposition from publishers and scientific societies who effectively ended the IEGs by 1969. In 1991, arXiv launched and the physics community rapidly adopted preprinting. It was not until the launch of bioRxiv in 2013 that biology began to accept preprints. More recently, some funders such as the [Chan Zuckerberg Initiative] and [Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation] have begun to mandate preprints. We've also witnessed governmental declarations that support a not-for-profit, no cost to authors or readers system of academic publishing; a system that has preprints at the beating heart. Preprints represented approximately 12% of the literature in 2023 and there are now over [750,000 life science preprints], of which more than 220,000 are hosted on bioRxiv. Cumulatively, bioRxiv preprints have been downloaded over 150 million times since 2013.
A

Preprints on Europe PMC

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

B

Preprints on PMC as percentage of published articles

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /></figure>

C

Cumulative new bioRxiv submissions

<figure><img src="image_5.png" /></figure>

D

Number of bioRxiv PDF downloads over time

<figure><img src="image_6.png" /></figure>

Preprints in Developmental Biology

With the launch of bioRxiv in 2013, Developmental Biology was quick to adopt this new method of scientific communication, posting preprints that same year. As of 2023, Developmental Biology sits in the middle of preprints on bioRxiv, as the 15th largest field with almost 6700 total preprints posted. This is also true in terms of preprint downloads where Developmental Biology preprints are [downloaded slightly less](#) than the mean for bioRxiv. Approximately ~70% of bioRxiv [5] preprints are eventually published, with our data showing that at least 54% of Developmental Biology have been published by the end of 2023 (though this number is likely to be higher due to issues linking preprints to the published version). Additionally, many Developmental Biology preprints are posted with restrictive licenses with only 17% having an open, CC-BY license. However, this is very similar to the larger bioRxiv corpus where only 18% of preprints have a CC-BY license. Similarly, most Developmental Biology preprints are posted as a single version which negates the benefit of being able to iteratively update a preprint. Within the field, the University of Cambridge (UK) is one of the largest contributors of preprints, having contributed over 100 Developmental Biology preprints to bioRxiv since 2013.

Interestingly, despite being in the middle of the pack in terms of preprint posting, Developmental Biology is the second biggest category for number of preLights posted (>350). [preLights](#) (a preprint highlighting service from CoB) is a platform in which ECRs write news & views style articles of preprints. This highlights the benefits of a strong community-led curation and demonstrates how this can work for other platforms.
A

Preprints posted to bioRxiv

<figure><img src="image_7.png" /></figure>

B

Licenses used for Developmental Biology preprints

Preprints restricted to first version

<figure><img src="image_8.png" /></figure>

C

Developmental biology preprint versions

<figure><img src="image_9.png" /></figure>

## Develop your use of preprints

Preprints serve multiple purposes. First, they help to shift the power dynamic in academic publishing, placing the power back in the hands of authors. This helps to accelerate the dissemination of scientific knowledge, free from the pressures and delays associated with publishing. The benefits of this open, accelerated system were highlighted during the COVID-19 pandemic when almost 40% [3] of the initial COVID-19 related research was first shared as preprints, directly leading to changes in policy and potentially *saving lives* [1]. Preprints can appear online within 48 hours of submission, compared to months and years under traditional publishing routes. This also proves particularly useful to publicly rebut published research and avoid the *long delays of scientific corrections* [6] or the rather *unused platforms* [7] for post-publication peer review.

Preprints also decouple the quality of research from metrics like journal impact factor, promoting fairer, better, evaluation. They also provide a platform for early-career researchers
to showcase their work and gain recognition, fostering a more inclusive and diverse research landscape. Additionally, preprints can be used iteratively to share ongoing research and get feedback from the community. However, perhaps the most important benefit of preprints is that they offer a viable route towards meaningful change to scientific communication; one that is free from financial incentives and pressure and that is community-focussed.

The best way to get started with preprints is to use them in your research by citing and reading them. The Node maintains "In preprints" which is a great series for discovering relevant Developmental Biology preprints each month. Going further, you could also discuss preprints in your journal club - or even review them on platforms like [PREreview](https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2103441118) or [hypothes.is](https://hypothes.is/) with [support from ASAPbio](https://www.asapbio.com/)⁵. For ECRs, [preLights](https://prelights.org/) is an excellent opportunity to take your first steps into commenting on preprints.

Ready to develop how you share your research, amplify your voice, and contribute to a more open, Developmental Biology community? Grab our checklist (Box 1), explore resources, and [join the preprint movement]()

**Box 1. How to get started with preprints?**

1. Read a preprint

2. Discuss a preprint at your next journal club or join/create a preprint review journal club

3. Review a preprint or write a preLights article to highlight a preprint

4. Curate a list of preprints

5. Post a preprint when going to conferences or before submitting your next manuscript to a journal (The Journal of Physiology is part of the J2B service for direct submission)

**References:**

[1] Besançon, L., Peiffer-Smadja, N., Segalas, C. et al. Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Med Res Methodol 21, 117 (2021).
https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01304-y

[2] Sanderson, K. (2024). Journal editors are resigning en masse: what do these group exits achieve?. Nature. https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00887-y

[3] Fraser N, Brierley L, Dey G, Polka JK, Pálfy M, et al. (2021) The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape. PLOS Biology 19(4): e3000959. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959

[4] Cobb M (2017) The prehistory of biology preprints: A forgotten experiment from the 1960s. PLOS Biology 15(11): e2003995. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2003995
[5] Nicholas Fraser, Fakhri Momeni, Philipp Mayr, Isabella Peters; The relationship between bioRxiv preprints, citations and altmetrics. Quantitative Science Studies 2020; 1 (2): 618-638. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/qss_a_00043

[6] Besançon L, Bik E, Heathers J, Meyerowitz-Katz G (2022) Correction of scientific literature: Too little, too late!. PLOS Biology 20(3): e3001572.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001572

[7] Biagioli, M., & Lippman, A. (Eds.). (2020). Gaming the metrics: Misconduct and manipulation in academic research. Mit Press.
https://doi.org/10.7551/mitpress/11087.001.0001