All of that said, there is hope that bioscience will utilise preprints in the way that physics does. But as a staunch advocate for so long I'm growing increasingly concerned with a number of growing issues in the preprint movement.
If it's just a numbers thing then the easiest thing to do is put all the advocacy effort behind publisher owned servers. If it's about "good" use of preprints then that requires much more effort in advocacy and cultural change.
This final point is important. Efforts should be discipline specific - not one size fits all. Advocacy needs appropriate experience and there's a big difference between a lab researcher and a humantieis or social sciences one.
We're also seeing a consolidation of power and increased gatekeeping by some in the movement. Closed, invite only, meetings. Alternative views dismissed or silenced. Lack of evidence driven actions. Lack of relevant expertise/experience (lots of psychologist driving things atm).
Meanwhile the preprint effort is becoming fragmented right when it's in need of a greater push.
Myths that were around 10 years ago still persist. Researchers globally are not being reached. We need to engage more with China but this doesn't appear to be happening.
Preprinting has stalled in the biosciences. I'm seeing an abandonment by orgs but not much in the way of renewed advocacy efforts.
If preprint numbers increase but at the cost of quality that would be a bad thing - and this doesn't mean more checks or review but rather cultural improvements in academia and higher standards
This, ofc, is something I'd love to see. As someone now on the outside of the preprint effort looking in, I'm not so convinced.
(Trying to take an objective View)
🧵
What is Critical Metascience and Why is it Important?: https://osf.io/3g9hm
We should start all discussions with "be it resolved" followed by fancy hand waving actions.
Though I'd love to hear what others would do with such ultimate power
I think I'd consolidate around standalone preprints (just focussing on adoption, not review or anything on top of them). Also transparency (peer review, process etc). Open access I think is far too fractured and confusing so I'd revert back to subscriptions away from pay-to-publish.
What would the current publishing landscape look like if e-Biomed hadn't been prevented?
If you were given complete and total control over the open science movement, what would you do first?
Me? I'd stop almost all of the (too many) efforts vying for attention, funding and resources. Far fewer personal projects, more evidence driven approaches with thought-though consequences
DMs now open! Because it took ages for me to actually do the age verification.
If you have questions or want to chat with me you now can 🙂.
Personal account may return at some point in the future too.
There are some templates for biorxiv floating around including one for word I think. But I love when folks do that as it makes the preprints look so much better 😍
This also showed me that maybe I should start looking for roles with publishers - they have some fantastic people working for them already but they'd definitely benefit from my expertise in open science and community/relationship building - just in case any are reading this! 😉
5. After my past few months, the conference was a great reinforcer for much of what I've been saying and trying to raise awareness of - in spite of the difficulties this has caused me within the preprint space.
4. There's far too much discussion on what researchers want that is coming from people who are not researchers.
For example; Did eLife switching to an exclusive focus on preprints really need a whole new effort and movement? The answer is a definite no. The PRC coalition diverts resources, attention and vital funds away from the very effort it requires - preprints.
3. Researchers are tired (for very good reasons) not just of reviewing, but of navigating an ever-expanding landscape of initiatives, frameworks, and acronyms.
2. There are too many "innovations" and new attempts to "improve" publishing - often without the necessary efforts to raise awareness or buy-in.
1. One of the biggest takeaways for me was the tacit acknowledgment of just how bad things are and how current efforts are not best placed to realistically solve these issues
Our key takeaways from the Research to Reader conference this week:
Read the full post: ripplingideas.org/2026/02/27/r...
This is one of the most interesting developments as it appears that authors are now submitting preprints earlier in the process.
A reminder that our data suggests that the best time to post is approx 1 month prior to journal submission (which ~30% now are).
✨ Updated preprint on bioRxiv preprints!
A new version of our preprint summarizes #bioRxiv progress over the last 12 years. This is an update of our original 2019 preprint with new data & highlights from a more recent survey of >7000 users. www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...
#preprints #OpenScience
Definitely miss London! Nice to be back for a couple of days for the research 2 reader conference.
Panel on Tuesday morning :)
Software drives science, but it’s often invisible 😩
Well not if the SoFAIR project has anything to do with it!
SoFAIR uncovered hidden software mentions in Europe PMC, making them searchable, traceable, and reusable first-class bibliographic entries!
Read more: blog.europepmc.org/2026/02/sofa...
We plan on running a limited virtual Fellows program for publishing, preprints and peer review this year!
Sign up to our Newsletter to be the first to find out when applications open! More information to come soon 👀
👉 https://bit.ly/RIsub 👈
