Cargando…

Preprints and Scholarly Communication: An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Adoption, Practices, Drivers and Barriers

Background: Since 2013, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of preprint servers. Little is known about the position of researchers, funders, research performing organisations and other stakeholders with respect to this fast-paced landscape. In this article, we explore the perceived bene...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Chiarelli, Andrea, Johnson, Rob, Pinfield, Stephen, Richens, Emma
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: F1000 Research Limited 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6961415/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32055396
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19619.2
_version_ 1783487988570783744
author Chiarelli, Andrea
Johnson, Rob
Pinfield, Stephen
Richens, Emma
author_facet Chiarelli, Andrea
Johnson, Rob
Pinfield, Stephen
Richens, Emma
author_sort Chiarelli, Andrea
collection PubMed
description Background: Since 2013, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of preprint servers. Little is known about the position of researchers, funders, research performing organisations and other stakeholders with respect to this fast-paced landscape. In this article, we explore the perceived benefits and challenges of preprint posting, alongside issues including infrastructure and financial sustainability. We also discuss the definition of a ‘preprint’ in different communities, and the impact this has on uptake. Methods: This study is based on 38 semi-structured interviews of key stakeholders, based on a purposive heterogeneous sampling approach and undertaken between October 2018 and January 2019. Interviewees were primarily drawn from biology, chemistry and psychology, where use of preprints is growing. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis to identify trends. Interview questions were designed based on Innovation Diffusion Theory, which was also used to interpret our results. Results: Participants were conscious of the rising prominence of preprints and cited early and fast dissemination as their most appealing feature. Preprints were also considered to enable broader access to scientific literature and increased opportunities for informal commenting. The main concerns related to the lack of quality assurance and the ‘Ingelfinger rule’. We identified trust as an essential factor in preprint posting, and highlight the enabling role of Twitter in showcasing preprints. Conclusions: The preprints landscape is evolving fast, and disciplinary communities are at different stages in the innovation diffusion process. The landscape is characterised by experimentation, which leads to the conclusion that a one-size-fits-all approach to preprints is not feasible. Cooperation and active engagement between the stakeholders involved will play an important role going forward. We share questions for the further development of the preprints landscape, with the most important being whether preprint posting will develop as a publisher- or researcher-centric practice.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6961415
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher F1000 Research Limited
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-69614152020-02-12 Preprints and Scholarly Communication: An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Adoption, Practices, Drivers and Barriers Chiarelli, Andrea Johnson, Rob Pinfield, Stephen Richens, Emma F1000Res Research Article Background: Since 2013, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of preprint servers. Little is known about the position of researchers, funders, research performing organisations and other stakeholders with respect to this fast-paced landscape. In this article, we explore the perceived benefits and challenges of preprint posting, alongside issues including infrastructure and financial sustainability. We also discuss the definition of a ‘preprint’ in different communities, and the impact this has on uptake. Methods: This study is based on 38 semi-structured interviews of key stakeholders, based on a purposive heterogeneous sampling approach and undertaken between October 2018 and January 2019. Interviewees were primarily drawn from biology, chemistry and psychology, where use of preprints is growing. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis to identify trends. Interview questions were designed based on Innovation Diffusion Theory, which was also used to interpret our results. Results: Participants were conscious of the rising prominence of preprints and cited early and fast dissemination as their most appealing feature. Preprints were also considered to enable broader access to scientific literature and increased opportunities for informal commenting. The main concerns related to the lack of quality assurance and the ‘Ingelfinger rule’. We identified trust as an essential factor in preprint posting, and highlight the enabling role of Twitter in showcasing preprints. Conclusions: The preprints landscape is evolving fast, and disciplinary communities are at different stages in the innovation diffusion process. The landscape is characterised by experimentation, which leads to the conclusion that a one-size-fits-all approach to preprints is not feasible. Cooperation and active engagement between the stakeholders involved will play an important role going forward. We share questions for the further development of the preprints landscape, with the most important being whether preprint posting will develop as a publisher- or researcher-centric practice. F1000 Research Limited 2019-11-25 /pmc/articles/PMC6961415/ /pubmed/32055396 http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19619.2 Text en Copyright: © 2019 Chiarelli A et al. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Research Article
Chiarelli, Andrea
Johnson, Rob
Pinfield, Stephen
Richens, Emma
Preprints and Scholarly Communication: An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Adoption, Practices, Drivers and Barriers
title Preprints and Scholarly Communication: An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Adoption, Practices, Drivers and Barriers
title_full Preprints and Scholarly Communication: An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Adoption, Practices, Drivers and Barriers
title_fullStr Preprints and Scholarly Communication: An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Adoption, Practices, Drivers and Barriers
title_full_unstemmed Preprints and Scholarly Communication: An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Adoption, Practices, Drivers and Barriers
title_short Preprints and Scholarly Communication: An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Adoption, Practices, Drivers and Barriers
title_sort preprints and scholarly communication: an exploratory qualitative study of adoption, practices, drivers and barriers
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6961415/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32055396
http://dx.doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19619.2
work_keys_str_mv AT chiarelliandrea preprintsandscholarlycommunicationanexploratoryqualitativestudyofadoptionpracticesdriversandbarriers
AT johnsonrob preprintsandscholarlycommunicationanexploratoryqualitativestudyofadoptionpracticesdriversandbarriers
AT pinfieldstephen preprintsandscholarlycommunicationanexploratoryqualitativestudyofadoptionpracticesdriversandbarriers
AT richensemma preprintsandscholarlycommunicationanexploratoryqualitativestudyofadoptionpracticesdriversandbarriers