# The promise of community-driven preprints in ecology and evolution

Daniel Noble, Zoe Xirocostas, Nicholas Wu, April Robin Martinig, Rafaela Almeida, Kevin Bairos-Novak, Heikel Balti, Michael Bertram, Louis Bliard, Jack Brand, et al.

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

## To cite this version:

Daniel Noble, Zoe Xirocostas, Nicholas Wu, April Robin Martinig, Rafaela Almeida, et al. The promise of community-driven preprints in ecology and evolution. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 2025, 292 (2039), pp.20241487. 10.1098/rspb.2024.1487. hal-04660631

HAL Id: hal-04660631

https://hal.science/hal-04660631v1

Submitted on 24 Jul 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>
The promise of community-driven preprints in ecology and evolution

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

Authors: Daniel W.A. Noble¹, Zoe A. Xirocostas², Nicholas C. Wu³, April R. Martinig⁴, Rafaela A.

Almeida⁵, Kevin R. Bairos-Novak⁶, Heikel Balti⁷, Michael G. Bertram⁸,⁹,¹⁰, Louis Bliard¹¹, Jack A. Brand⁸,

Ilha Byrne¹³, Ying-Chi Chan¹⁴, Dena J. Clink¹⁵, Quentin Corbel¹⁶, Ricardo A. Correia¹⁷, Jordann Crawford-

Ash¹⁸, Antica Culina¹⁹, Elvira D'Bastiani²⁰, Gideon G. Deme²¹,²², Melina de Souza Leite²³, Félicie

Dhellemmes²⁴,²⁵, Shreya Dimri²⁶, Szymek M. Drobniak⁴,²⁷, Alexander D. Elsy²⁸, Susan E. Everingham²⁹,

Samuel J. L. Gascoigne³⁰, Matthew J. Grainger³¹, Gavin C. Hossack³², Knut Anders Hovstad³³, Ed R.

Ivimey-Cook³⁴, Matt Lloyd Jones³⁵, Ineta Kačergytė³⁶, Georg Küstner³⁷, Dalton C. Leibold¹, Magdalena M.

Mair³⁸, Jake Martin⁸,⁹,³⁹, Ayumi Mizuno⁴,⁴⁰, Iain R. Moodie⁴¹, David Moreau⁴², Rose E. O'Dea⁴³, James A.

Orr⁴⁴, Matthieu Paquet⁴⁵, Rabindra Parajuli⁴⁶, Joel L. Pick⁴⁷, Patrice Pottier¹,⁴, Marija Purgar¹⁹, Pablo Recio¹,

Dominique G. Roche⁴⁸, Raphaël Royauté⁴⁹, Saeed Shafiei Sabet⁵⁰, Julio M. G. Segovia²⁶, Inês Silva⁵¹,

Alfredo Sánchez-Tójar²⁶, Bruno E. Soares⁵², Birgit Szabo⁵³, Elina Takola⁵⁴, Eli S.J. Thoré⁸,⁵⁵, Bishnu

Timilsina⁵⁶, Natalie E. van Dis⁵⁷, Wilco C.E.P. Verberk⁵⁸, Stefan J.G. Vriend⁵⁹, Kristoffer H. Wild¹,⁶⁰,

Coralie Williams⁴, Yefeng Yang⁴, Shinichi Nakagawa⁴,⁶¹\*, Malgorzata Lagisz⁴\*

Affiliations

18

19

¹Division of Ecology and Evolution, Research School of Biology, The Australian National University,
Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia

20

² School of Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia

21

³Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Richmond, NSW 2753, Australia

22

⁴Evolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences,
University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia

23

⁵Laboratory of Freshwater Ecology, Evolution and Conservation, KU Leuven, Belgium

24

⁶School of the Environment, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia

25

⁷ Chrono-environnement UMR 6249, CNRS, Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté, F-25000, Besançon,
France

26

27

⁸Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
Umeå 907 36, Sweden

28

29

⁹Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, Stockholm 114 18, Sweden

30

¹⁰School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne 3800, Australia

31

¹¹ Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, Switzerland

32

¹² Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences,
Umeå, Sweden

33

34

¹³ School of the Environment, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia

35

¹⁴ Swiss Ornithological Institute, Sempach, Switzerland

36

¹⁵ K. Lisa Yang Center for Conservation Bioacoustics, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University,
Ithaca, NY, USA

37

38

¹⁶ Theoretical and Experimental Ecology Station (SETE), CNRS, France

39

¹⁷ Biodiversity Unit, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland

40

¹⁸ Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra ACT

41

¹⁹ Ruđer Bošković Institute, Zagreb, Croatia

42

²⁰ Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles

43

²¹ Department of Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA

44

²² Department of Science Laboratory Technology, University of Jos, Jos, Nigeria

45

²³ Department of Ecology, University of São Paulo, Brazil
47 ²⁴ Cluster of Excellence “Science of Intelligence”, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany

48 ²⁵ Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, Germany

50 ²⁶ Department of Evolutionary Biology, Bielefeld University, Germany

51 ²⁷ Institute of Environmental Sciences, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland

52 ²⁸ Department of Environmental Systems Science, ETH Zurich, Switzerland

53 ²⁹ Institute of Plant Sciences and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern

54 ³⁰ Department of Biology, University of Oxford, United Kingdom

55 ³¹ Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Trondheim, Norway

56 ³² Port Perry, Ontario, Canada

57 ³³ Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre, Trondheim, Norway

58 ³⁴ School of Biodiversity, One Health and Veterinary Medicine, University of Glasgow, UK

59 ³⁵ European Centre for the Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Penryn, United Kingdom

61 ³⁶ Ecology department, Swedish University of Agricultural sciences, Sweden

62 ³⁷ Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biocenter, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany

64 ³⁸ Statistical Ecotoxicology, Bayreuth Center of Ecology and Environmental Research (BayCEER), University of Bayreuth, Germany

66 ³⁹ School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, 3216, Australia

67 ⁴⁰ Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Japan

68 ⁴¹ Department of Biology, Lund University, Sweden

69 ⁴² Centre for Brain Research, University of Auckland, New Zealand

70 ⁴³ School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, University of Melbourne

71 ⁴⁴ Department of Biology, University of Oxford

72 ⁴⁵ Theoretical and Experimental Ecology Station (SETE), CNRS, France

73 ⁴⁶ Department of Geosciences, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA

74 ⁴⁷ Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Edinburgh, UK

75 ⁴⁸ Department of Biology, Carleton University, Canada

76 ⁴⁹ Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, UMR EcoSys, Palaiseau, France

77 ⁵⁰ Fisheries Department, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Guilan, Swomeh Sara, Iran

78 ⁵¹ Center for Advanced Systems Understanding (CASUS), Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf (HZDR), Görlitz, Germany

80 ⁵² Institute of Environmental Change & Society, University of Regina

81 ⁵³ Division of Behavioural Ecology, University of Bern, Switzerland

82 ⁵⁴ Department of Computational Landscape Ecology, Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research - UFZ, Leipzig, Germany

84 ⁵⁵ TRANSfarm - Science, Engineering, & Technology Group, KU Leuven, Lovenjoel 3360, Belgium

85 ⁵⁶ The Arctic University Museum of Norway, The Arctic University of Norway (UiT), Norway

86 ⁵⁷ Helsinki Institute of Life Sciences, Helsinki University, Finland

87 ⁵⁸ Department of Ecology, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen

88 ⁵⁹ Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), Wageningen, Netherlands

89 ⁶⁰ School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.

90 ⁶¹ Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, CW 405, Biological Sciences Building, Edmonton, AB T6G 2E9, Canada

92

93 corresponding author, daniel.noble@anu.edu.au

94 * equal contribution

95 ⁵⁻⁶⁰, Authors listed in alphabetical order

96
97

**Abstract**

98

99

100

101

102

103

104

105

106

107

108

109

110

111

Publishing preprints is quickly becoming commonplace in ecology and evolutionary biology. Preprints can facilitate the rapid sharing of scientific knowledge establishing precedence and enabling feedback from the research community before peer review. Yet, significant barriers to preprint use exist including language barriers, a lack of understanding about the benefits of preprints and a lack of diversity in the types of research outputs accepted (e.g., reports). Community driven preprint initiatives can allow a research community to come together to break down these barriers to improve equity and coverage of global knowledge. Here, we explore the first preprints uploaded to *EcoEvoRxiv*, a community-driven preprint server for ecologists and evolutionary biologists, to characterise preprint practices in ecology, evolution and conservation. Our perspective piece highlights some of the unique initiatives that *EcoEvoRxiv* has taken to break down barriers to scientific publishing by exploring the composition of articles, how gender and career stage influence preprint use, whether preprints are associated with greater open science principles (e.g., code and data sharing), and tracking preprint publication outcomes. Our analysis identifies areas that we still need to improve upon but highlight how community-driven initiatives, such as *EcoEvoRxiv*, can play a crucial role in shaping publishing practices in biology.

112

**1. Introduction**

113

114

115

116

117

118

119

120

121

122

Publishing preprints – papers communicating non-peer-reviewed research findings – is now an entrenched practice across a multitude of scientific disciplines [1]. Preprints in biology have had a slower uptake relative to other disciplines [2], but new discipline-specific preprint servers, such as *EcoEvoRxiv* (https://ecoevorxiv.org), provide a means by which ecologists and evolutionary biologists can disseminate research findings. Preprints attempt to break down barriers to scientific publishing by: 1) increasing the visibility of research and the speed at which research findings become available, which can lead to more citations [e.g., 3,4]; 2) helping establish the precedence of research findings; 3) removing financial barriers to open access publication; and 4) enabling feedback from the research community [5–7]. Ultimately, preprints can facilitate the rapid sharing of scientific knowledge that can have significant impacts on fundamental and applied knowledge globally [8].

123

124

125

126

127

128

129

130

Preprint servers can empower researchers to make their research findings more accessible, open, and transparent but only if they are used as forums for spreading and discussing findings within a research community. However, significant barriers to the widespread adoption of preprints remain, ranging from a lack of clarity around preprint policies in journals [9] to a stigma within the research community that preprints are of poor quality [10] (but see [11]). Nonetheless, we lack an understanding of the factors that influence preprint use in ecology and evolution. Such an understanding may help improve current initiatives (see below), inform future ones and allow us to work harder in further breaking down barriers to scientific publishing.

131

132

133

134

135

136

*EcoEvoRxiv* is one of the few community-driven preprint servers that has paved the way for new initiatives, by accepting multilingual preprints, registered reports, and non-traditional research reports. *EcoEvoRxiv* also promotes peer review and community discussion in the hopes of improving the quality of preprints and speeding up their peer-reviewed publication (e.g., Peer Community In - PCI [12]). Peer Community In allows for fast, constructive peer review around a preprint with peer reviews being transparent and published online [12].

137

138

139

140

141

Here, we explore the first preprints uploaded to *EcoEvoRxiv* to characterise preprint practices in ecology and evolution. We aim to understand: 1) in what countries authors who use *EcoEvoRxiv* are located; 2) the taxonomic diversity study systems across preprints; 3) whether preprint server use depends on career stage and gender; 4) the extent to which authors make use of preprint servers for reports and community-driven peer review; 5) the extent to which data and code are shared in preprints; and 6) how many preprints remain
142 unpublished, and for those that are published, how long it took for them to become published. In the process,

143 we also provide a summary of what makes *EcoEvoRxiv* distinct from other preprint servers to help further

144 clarify the benefits of using community-driven preprint servers to disseminate research findings.

145

## 2. Getting to know your *EcoEvoRxiv* preprint server

146 *EcoEvoRxiv* is run by the Society for Open, Reliable, and Transparent Ecology and Evolutionary Biology (SORTEE)[13]. Originally launched in 2018 on the Center for Open Science preprint platform, *EcoEvoRxiv* has become a popular preprint server for ecologists and evolutionary biologists. The server has since been adopted by the California Digital Library (CDL). Editors are ecologists and evolutionary biologists from across the globe who volunteer their time to screen papers and push new initiatives in the preprint space.

147

148

149

150

151 *EcoEvoRxiv* allows authors to post both preprints and postprints (also known as author-accepted manuscripts). While preprints are versions of manuscripts posted by authors before peer-review, postprints are versions of peer-reviewed and accepted articles but without typesetting and formatting by a journal. The main reason for publishing postprints on a preprint server is to ensure published articles are openly accessible to everyone without a paywall (i.e., green open access). Postprints can be published anytime, provided that journals allow it (which most do; see https://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/).

152

153

154

155

156
<figure><img src="image_3.png" /><figcaption>Figure 1- Summary of articles posted to *EcoEvoRxiv*. A) Number of articles (preprints and postprints) published on *EcoEvoRxiv* between 2018 and 2023. *EcoEvoRxiv* was established in June 2018 before the launch in November 2018. Notable milestones include *EcoEvoRxiv* transitioning to the California Digital Library (CDL), the acceptance of preprints and postprints in Spanish and Portuguese, and the acceptance of the first IUCN Red List Ecosystem report; B) Geographic origin of the preprints and postprints uploaded to *EcoEvoRxiv*, inferred from the country of affiliation of the submitting author; C) Taxa used/covered in the articles posted to *EcoEvoRxiv* (n = 1080 articles); D) Types of preprints accepted on *EcoEvoRxiv* (n = 620 articles). E) Academic age of authors posting to *EcoEvoRxiv* along with the gender of the submitting author.</figcaption></figure>
author. Values lower than zero are indicative of authors who uploaded preprints before their first scientific publication in a journal. Map base source: R Package "maps" v.3.4.2. Shapefile: Natural Earth https://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/.

157 **(a) Overview of EcoEvoRxiv preprints (and postprints)**

158 To better understand preprint (and postprint) use on *EcoEvoRxiv*, we downloaded metadata on the articles
159 available on *EcoEvoRxiv* as of 2023-09-30 (see Supplement for more details on methods). We consider both
160 preprints and postprints as ‘articles’. After removing five duplicate titles – suggesting that a few authors
161 created multiple submissions for the same preprint rather than updating the existing submission – we had
162 data for a total of 1216 articles with ~55–60 preprints published approximately monthly in the last two years
163 (figure 1A). *EcoEvoRxiv* hosts articles from authors based in 56 countries, with 90% of the articles coming
164 from just 17 countries. North America, Australia, and European countries upload the most preprints, with
165 many fewer coming from countries in Africa, Central America, and parts of Asia (figure 1B). Articles
166 covered all major taxonomic groups, with the most common being vertebrates (47.2%), plants (21.9%), and
167 invertebrates (17.5%) (figure 1C).

168 **(b) Diversifying article types on EcoEvoRxiv: overcoming the ‘grey literature’ problem**

169 Accepting a greater diversity of article types allows *EcoEvoRxiv* to help deal with the ‘grey literature’
170 problem, whereby data that are relevant for research syntheses are not published in typical peer-reviewed
171 journals [14,15]. *EcoEvoRxiv* has made a concerted effort to diversify the types of articles accepted. This is
172 reflected by 5% of the articles on *EcoEvoRxiv* being books, book chapters, reports, and other research output
173 types, which are typically considered ‘grey literature’ in ecology and evolutionary biology. As a result,
174 articles on *EcoEvoRxiv* are more diverse than those on preprint servers which have more restrictive
175 submission policies. For example, *bioRxiv* only accepts research articles (https://www.biorxiv.org/submit-a-
176 manuscript).

177 Typical research articles are still the most common type of preprint on *EcoEvoRxiv* (48.4%), followed by
178 reviews and meta-analyses (26.6%) and opinion papers (9.5%) (figure 1D). Currently, *EcoEvoRxiv* does not
179 host many reports, particularly from government or industry, but has formed fruitful partnerships with the
180 International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). For example, IUCN Red-list Ecosystem Reports are
181 now posted to *EcoEvoRxiv* and our community has been able to work closely with the IUCN to ensure these
182 documents meet the IUCN requirements. We would encourage authors to consider posting books, book
183 chapters, and reports to ensure that they are openly accessible and more easily found. *EcoEvoRxiv* articles are
184 given a unique DOI and are indexed on Google Scholar.

185 **(c) Breaking down language barriers to scientific communication: improving diversity and**
186 **data representation globally**

187 A significant barrier to the communication of research findings is the fact that they are primarily
188 communicated in English [16–18]. Research communication through a single language has major
189 consequences for the global distribution of knowledge, resulting in knowledge gaps across some of the most
190 biodiverse and threatened regions in the world [19,20]. Such gaps also impact research syntheses and meta-
191 analyses because they create a distorted picture of our knowledge base that can affect future research, policy
192 development and decision-making [20–23].

193 *EcoEvoRxiv* is the only preprint server to date that breaks down language barriers to scientific
194 communication by accepting not only English, but also Spanish, Portuguese and French language articles.
195 *EcoEvoRxiv* plans to expand to other languages as new non-English editors become available. Such
196 initiatives are incredibly important if we are to begin filling global voids of scientific knowledge. However,
197 multilingual initiatives have been slow to take off on *EcoEvoRxiv*, with only a few Spanish articles, and a
single Portuguese article, posted since starting to accept non-English articles in 2023. Part of the challenge in getting authors to submit non-English articles is the lack of awareness of *EcoEvoRxiv* in non-English speaking countries, cultural differences in the perception of preprints, and a strong reliance on traditional publishing models that typically mandate publishing in English [24].

## (d) Generational and gender-based gaps in preprinting practices

Research papers can take a while to be published (see below). However, Early and Mid-Career Researchers (EMCRs) (~10 years post-PhD) are under pressure to publish rapidly to be competitive in job applications, promotions, and obtaining grants to progress their careers [7,25]. Preprints are one way EMCRs can achieve faster dissemination and greater visibility [4]. As such, EMCRs may be expected to make use of preprints more than colleagues at later career stages. We collected data on the ‘academic age’ of submitting authors by looking at Google Scholar profiles of authors (when available) and recording their first year of publication in a peer-reviewed journal. While this is a rough estimate of career stage, there was evidence that the number of preprints posted decreases with later career stages (negative binomial glm: year slope = -0.1, SE: 0, *p* < 0.001, n = 42 years). Most preprints were submitted by authors who published their first paper in the last ~10 years (figure 1E), with the median year since first publication being 2013 (mean = 2010.6; SD = 9.9, n = 1214). These patterns support the expectation that EMCRs may use preprints to make their work more visible and disseminate their findings more quickly. However, we acknowledge that validating this conclusion does require more rigorous experimental approaches.

Gender differences in preprint use and publication outcomes have also been observed in several research fields, including ecology and evolutionary biology [26,27]. Therefore, such discrepancies are expected to manifest in preprint use on *EcoEvoRxiv*, but it is unclear to what extent. Understanding gender publishing patterns is challenging with observational data such as ours because we cannot know the gender of authors for certain, but we can use a data-driven approach to ascertain the probability that a particular name is of a given gender (man or woman). To obtain a rough idea of an author's gender, we used the R package *gender* (v.0.6.0; [28]) to predict the most likely gender of the submitting author of a preprint. We only used algorithm-assigned names where the gender was identified with 95% certainty. For the remaining names, we performed manual searches to determine gender based on the pronouns and photographs from professional and personal websites. We acknowledge that our approach does not capture self-assigned and non-binary genders. As such, our assumptions about an author's gender identity may be incorrect. Our data on gender had only two missing values—one where the first name of the submitting author was missing and the other one for a collective submission. As expected, we found that women were less likely to publish on *EcoEvoRxiv* compared to men (women: 37.8%), which may reflect the broader publishing disparities between male and female scientists [26].
231

232

## 3. Following the journey of a preprint on *EcoEvoRxiv*: from submission to publication

<figure><img src="image_4.png" /><figcaption>Figure 2- Summary of the publication status of articles on *EcoEvoRxiv*. A) Time between uploading an preprint to *EcoEvoRxiv* and its publication as a peer-reviewed journal article. Articles that were published within 2 months (60 days) of being submitted are considered postprints and are not included in this figure.</figcaption></figure>

B) Access status of articles linked to *EcoEvoRxiv* preprints classified as “Open Access” or “Not Open Access”. “Unknown” status is for articles not explicitly identified as being open access or not on the Unpaywall platform. C) Sub-types of open access status of articles linked to *EcoEvoRxiv* preprints. For full details on the meaning of each category see

https://support.unpaywall.org/support/solutions/articles/44001777288-what-do-the-types-of-oa-status-green-gold-hybrid-and-bronze-mean-.

233

### (a) *Science takes time, but publication could take longer*

234

235

236

237

238

239

Increased competition in science has raised the bar with respect to the amount of data required for publication [7]. This requirement is a good outcome if it results in higher-impact research that better clarifies our understanding of the natural world, but it does come at a cost for the speed of research dissemination [7]. Preprints have been proposed as a way to disseminate research more quickly as it can take a long time before results are ultimately published [6,7]. However, data on the time to publication is needed to quantify the real benefit of preprints in this context.

240

241

242

243

244

245

246

247

We estimated how long it takes to publish a research paper in ecology and evolution by recording the time between when an article was first posted on *EcoEvoRxiv*, and its final acceptance in a peer-reviewed journal. In total, 383 papers remained unpublished (31.5%, n = 1216) at the time when these data were collected. Not all of these papers, however, are anticipated to be published in a peer-reviewed journal (e.g., reports). Nonetheless, the median time to publication for preprints was 237 days (8 months) (mean = 286.4; SD = 193.9 days) with the maximum time to publication being 1549 days or 4.2 years (figure 2A). Our results largely confirm the extended timeframes that most authors experience between writing their research papers and their publication.

248

### (b) *Cautious 'open'-mindedness of research in preprints*

249

250

251

252

253

In addition to speeding up dissemination, preprints and postprints can also be a useful way to ensure that research remains open and accessible to the research community irrespective of the accessibility of the final peer-reviewed paper [6,7]. We evaluated whether articles hosted at *EcoEvoRxiv*, and that were also published in a journal, were published open access. The open access status of each published article was obtained using the R package *roadoi* (v.0.7.2) to connect to the Unpaywall platform [29]. Most of the published articles
254

255

256

were open access [80.5% (n = 351) out of 436 where the status was known]; figure 2A]; however, 19.5% (n = 85) were published behind paywalls. For articles published in open access journals, the type of open access also varied widely (e.g., Gold, Hybrid, Green OA etc., figure 2B).

257

258

259

260

261

Data and code sharing are also key components of open science [30]. In the spirit of ‘openness’, we expected data and code sharing among preprints to be greater than in many papers published in research journals [30,31]. Despite this, we found that 54.1% (n = 232) of articles relying on data on *EcoEvoRxiv* did not share data, and 56.9% (n = 246) did not share code (counting only data-based articles, i.e., excluding reviews, commentaries or theoretical works).

262

263

264

265

266

267

268

269

270

Authors may be reluctant to share data and code for preprints because of the perceived concern that others may acquire and use their data and code before publication in a journal. Authors of 28.7% (n = 123) of articles that did not share data at the preprint stage did ultimately share data when the article was published; whereas authors of 35.2% (n = 151) never shared data. However, 36.1% (n = 155) shared data at both stages. The same was true for code. Overall, 16.8% (n = 72) preprints had no open code at the preprint stage but did at the published article stage and authors of 45.2% (n = 194) preprints did not share code at either stage. However, 38% (n = 163) shared code at both stages. Relatively low code and data-sharing practices in our sample is consistent with analyses of sharing practices for published articles (e.g., [31]), even for journals with strict public data archiving policies [30].

271

## 4. Paving our future to open, transparent and community-driven science

272

273

274

275

276

277

278

279

280

281

282

Our analysis has allowed us to better understand preprinting/postprinting practices in *EcoEvoRxiv*. Overall, *EcoEvoRxiv* articles are diverse but with primary research articles on vertebrates comprising most of the articles posted. North America, Europe and Australia use *EcoEvoRxiv* the most with very few non-English language articles to date. Submitting authors who were earlier in their career and more often with ‘male-associated names’ tended to use *EcoEvoRxiv* the most. Articles posted to *EcoEvoRxiv* tend to take up to 8 months to become published with many articles not being open access. Code and data sharing was also relatively uncommon at the preprint stage. At the same time, we attempted to collect data on community discussion around preprints no such data was found on preprint landing pages, likely reflecting inadequate functionality and cross-linking with sources where such discussion is occurring. Based on the insights from our analysis, we provide recommendations to authors and the scientific community on ways they can further promote open and transparent research through preprints:

283

284

285

286

287

288

* First, share your data and code at the preprint stage. Sharing data and code early can help improve the quality of research, establish precedence, and improve the transparency and computational reproducibility of scientific findings [25]. Reassuringly, sharing data and code is rarely associated with the ‘scooping’ of research findings [32]. If authors are worried about data being used unintentionally, clear information surrounding its reuse can be included in a license (see https://choosealicense.com). Data can also be archived with an embargo on its reuse [33].

289

290

291

292

293

294

295

296

* Second, take advantage of peer-reviewing services such as Peer Community In (PCI). The time between posting a preprint and publication is still quite long (~8 months). One possible explanation is that preprints are not being sent to suitable journals or are struggling to get into review, slowing down constructive feedback that can improve the quality of a paper. Using PCI circumvents editorial decisions without review, yet only 1.6% (n = 10) used PCI. Using such services will ensure that authors receive faster feedback on a paper. Ninety-three journals currently accept PCI reviews and recommendations when considering a paper for publication (https://peercommunityin.org/pci-friendly-journals/).

297

298

299

* Third, seek out and contribute to constructive feedback on preprints [6]. While it is clear that preprints help establish precedence and allow findings to be openly accessible, it still seems rare that constructive discussions form around preprints in an open forum (e.g. bioRxiv [34]). Unfortunately,
300

301

302

303

304

305

306

the *EcoEvoRxiv* website does not provide opportunities for discussion given the limitations of the web server at this point in time. As such, we could not accurately assess how much discourse around a given preprint occurs. Clearly, as a community, we need to provide better platforms that document discussions around preprint findings. Such discussions help authors improve their work and communicate their findings more effectively (when done constructively, of course). One way to facilitate such discussions may be to use open preprint peer-review services such as *Peer Community In (PCI)* or *PubPeer* (see also [35]) to provide feedback on preprints.

307

308

309

310

311

312

313

314

315

316

317

318

319

320

* Finally, keep your preprints updated. While most preprints get seamlessly connected and merged with their published version, some remain ‘disconnected’ as separate articles. Incorrect cross-linking by indexing platforms (e.g., Google Scholar) can create confusion and lead to frustration among authors. Thankfully, the reasons for unmatched preprints and publications are well-understood and easily rectified. They often result from a mismatch between preprint and published metadata (e.g., titles and author details). For example, nearly one-third of articles changed their title from preprint submission to publication [32.3% (n = 199)]. We found that mismatched metadata almost always contributed to preprints and published articles not being matched automatically in Google Scholar. We recommend that authors update their preprints with the publication DOI when accepted to journals, especially if their title has changed. This is very easy for authors to do on *EcoEvoRxiv* and ensures that the preprint is correctly linked to the published article and citations are appropriately merged. Adding DOIs will also create a link between the final preprint and the published paper so that, no matter the open access status of the publication, the research findings will remain openly accessible, saving costs for authors (i.e., by not having to pay open access fees) and improving the visibility and use of research.

321

322

323

324

325

326

327

328

329

Despite the early successes of the new initiatives taken by *EcoEvoRxiv*, as described above, much work remains to be done to improve the understanding and use of pre- and postprints within our community. We view this perspective piece as a small step towards achieving that goal. We hope that readers are more familiar with the benefits of using community-driven preprint servers and the unique initiatives they can pursue. Community-driven preprint servers can set their own agenda and are driven by the needs and desires of the community. Supporting these initiatives should be a priority for all researchers. Volunteers at *EcoEvoRxiv* are encouraged to remain open to new and innovative ways to improve publication and open science practices. We believe that the future of preprints is bright, and community-driven initiatives, such as *EcoEvoRxiv* will play a crucial role in the future of scientific publishing.

330

## Data accessibility

331

All data and code can be found on GitHub at: https://github.com/daniel1noble/ecoeco_v1000

332

## Competing interests

333

334

335

The authors would like to acknowledge competing interests on the perspectives presented in this paper given that many (DWAN, SN, ML) are founding members of *EcoEvoRxiv* and/or are part of the *EcoEvoRxiv* committee.

336

## Funding

337

338

339

DWAN would also like to thank the Australian Research Council for a Future Fellowship (FT220100276). SN and ML are supported by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Project Grants (DP210100812 and DP230101248).
340

Acknowledgements

341

We would like to thank the California Digital Library (CDL) and the CDL team (particularly, Alainna

342

Wrigley, Justin Gonder, Lisa Schiff, Catherine Mitchell, Hardy Pottinger and Amanda Karby) for their

343

support in hosting and maintaining *EcoEvoRxiv* for the Society for Open, Reliable, and Transparent Ecology

344

and Evolutionary Biology (SORTEE). We would like to thank Gabriela Hidalgo and Daisy Larios for helping

345

connect us with the IUCN and facilitating discussions to make *EcoEvoRxiv* a place where IUCN reports can

346

be posted. Finally, we would also like to thank the endless number of SORTEE volunteers, and those

347

especially on the *EcoEvoRxiv* Committee, who have helped to make *EcoEvoRxiv* a success. This paper

348

emerged from a hackathon at the 2023 SORTEE conference, and we thank delegates who attended the

349

session but could not be part of this paper.

350

References

351

1. Ginsparg P. 2011 ArXiv at 20. *Nature* **476**, 145–147.

352

2. Berg JM *et al*. 2016 Preprints for the life sciences. *Science* **352**, 899–901.

353

3. Colavizza G, Cadwallader L, LaFlamme M, Dozot G, Lecorney S, Rappo D, Hrynaszkiewicz I. 2024

354

An analysis of the effects of sharing research data, code, and preprints on citations. *arXiv preprint*

355

*arXiv:2404.16171*

356

4. Fu DY, Hughey JJ. 2019 Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the

357

peer-reviewed article. *Elife* **8**, e52646.

358

5. Desjardins-Proulx P, White EP, Adamson JJ, Ram K, Gravel TPD. 2013 The case for open preprints

359

in biology. *PLOS Biology* **11**, e1001563.

360

6. Bourne PE, Polka JK, Vale RD, Kiley R. 2017 Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint

361

submission. *PLOS Computational Biology* **13**, e1005473.

362

7. Vale RD. 2015 Accelerating scientific publication in biology. *Proceedings of the National Academy*

363

of Sciences **112**, 13439–13446.

364

8. Ni R, Waltman L. 2024 To preprint or not to preprint: A global researcher survey. *Journal of the*

365

*Association for Information Science and Technology*

366

9. Klebel T, Reichmann S, Polka J, McDowell G, Penfold N, Hindle S, Ross-Hellauer T. 2020 Peer

367

review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals. *PLOS ONE* **15**, e0239518.

368

10. Chiarelli A, Johnson R, Pinfield S, Richens E. 2019 Preprints and scholarly communication: An

369

exploratory qualitative study of adoption, practices, drivers and barriers. *F1000 Research* **8**, 971,

370

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19619.2.

371

11. Fraser N, Mayr P, Peters I. 2022 Motivations, concerns and selection biases when posting preprints:

372

A survey of bioRxiv authors. *PLOS ONE* **17**, e0274441.

373

12. Guillemaud T, Facon B, Bourguet D. 2019 Peer community in: A free process for the

374

recommendation of unpublished scientific papers based on peer review. *ELectronic PUblishing*

375

13. O’Dea RE *et al*. 2021 Towards open, reliable, and transparent ecology and evolutionary biology.

376

*BMC biology* **19**, 68.
377

378

14. Haddaway NR, Bayliss HR. 2015 Shades of grey: Two forms of grey literature important for reviews in conservation. *Biological Conservation* **191**, 827–829.

379

380

381

15. Haddaway NR, Bethel A, Dicks LV, Koricheva J, Macura B, Petrokofsky G, Pullin AS, Savilaakso S, Stewart GB. 2020 Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them. *Nature Ecology & Evolution* **4**, 1582–1589.

382

383

16. Amano T, González-Varo JP, Sutherland WJ. 2016 Languages are still a major barrier to global science. *PLOS Biology* **14**, e2000933.

384

385

386

17. Amano T, Sutherland WJ. 2013 Four barriers to the global understanding of biodiversity conservation: Wealth, language, geographical location and security. *Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences* **280**, 20122649.

387

388

18. Amano T, Rios Rojas C, Boum II Y, Calvo M, Misra BB. 2021 Ten tips for overcoming language barriers in science. *Nature Human Behaviour* **5**, 1119–1122.

389

390

19. Amano T et al. 2023 The role of non-english-language science in informing national biodiversity assessments. *Nature Sustainability* **6**, 845–854.

391

392

20. Zenni RD, Barlow J, Pettorelli N, Stephens P, Rader R, Siqueira T, Gordon R, Pinfield T, Nuñez MA. 2023 Multi-lingual literature searches are needed to unveil global knowledge. *Journal of Applied Ecology*

393

394

21. Hannah K, Haddaway NR, Fuller RA, Amano T. 2024 Language inclusion in ecological systematic reviews and maps: Barriers and perspectives. *Research Synthesis Methods*

395

396

397

22. White CR, Marshall DJ, Chown SL, Clusella-Trullas S, Portugal SJ, Franklin CE, Seebacher F. 2021 Geographical bias in physiological data limits predictions of global change impacts. *Functional Ecology* **35**, 1572–1578.

398

399

23. Konno K, Akasaka M, Koshida C, Katayama N, Osada N, Spake R, Amano T. 2020 Ignoring non-english-language studies may bias ecological meta-analyses. *Ecology and Evolution* **10**, 6373–6384.

400

401

24. Arenas-Castro H et al. 2024 Academic publishing requires linguistically inclusive policies. *Proceedings of the Royal Society B* **291**, 20232840.

402

403

25. Sarabipour S, Debat HJ, Emmott E, Burgess SJ, Schwessinger B, Hensel Z. 2019 On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective. *PLOS Biology* **17**, e3000151.

404

405

26. Fox CW, Paine CT. 2019 Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six journals of ecology and evolution. *Ecology and Evolution* **9**, 3599–3619.

406

407

408

27. Wehner MR, Li Y, Nead KT. 2020 Comparison of the proportions of female and male corresponding authors in preprint research repositories before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. *JAMA network open* **3**, e2020335–e2020335.

409

28. Mullen L. 2021 Predict gender from names using historical data. R package version 0.6.0.

410

411

29. Jahn N. 2024 Roadoi: Find free versions of scholarly publications via unpaywall. R package version 0.7.2. https://github.com/ropensci/roadoi/, https://docs.ropensci.org/roadoi/.

412

413

30. Roche DG, Kruuk LE, Lanfear R, Binning SA. 2015 Public data archiving in ecology and evolution: How well are we doing? *PLOS Biology* **13**, e1002295.
414
415

31. O'Dea RE *et al*. 2021 Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ecology and evolutionary biology: A PRISMA extension. *Biological Reviews* **96**, 1695–1722.

416
417

32. Soeharjono S, Roche DG. 2021 Reported individual costs and benefits of sharing open data among Canadian academic faculty in ecology and evolution. *BioScience* **71**, 750–756.

418
419
420

33. Roche DG, Lanfear R, Binning SA, Haff TM, Schwanz LE, Cain KE, Kokko H, Jennions MD, Kruuk LE. 2014 Troubleshooting public data archiving: Suggestions to increase participation. *PLoS biology* **12**, e1001779.

421
422

34. Anderson KR. 2020 bioRxiv: Trends and analysis of five years of preprints. *Learned Publishing* **33**, 104–109.

423
424

35. Avissar-Whiting M *et al*. 2024 Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science. *PLOS Biology* **22**, e3002502.

425