Search bioRxiv⌕ Search
Home/Archive/bioRxiv

bioRxiv · 10.1101/2021.09.07.459259

Motivations, concerns and selection biases when posting preprints: a survey of bioRxiv authors

Fraser, N.·Mayr, P.·Peters, I.
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Since 2013, the usage of preprints as a means of sharing research in biology has rapidly grown, in particular via the preprint server bioRxiv. Recent studies have found that journal articles that were previously posted to bioRxiv received a higher number of citations or mentions/shares on other online platforms compared to articles in the same journals that were not posted. However, the exact causal mechanism for this effect has not been established, and may in part be related to authors biases in the selection of articles that are chosen to be posted as preprints. We aimed to investigate this mechanism by conducting a mixed-methods survey of 1,444 authors of bioRxiv preprints, to investigate the reasons that they post or do not post certain articles as preprints, and to make comparisons between articles they choose to post and not post as preprints. We find that authors are most strongly motivated to post preprints to increase awareness of their work and increase the speed of its dissemination; conversely, the strongest reasons for not posting preprints centre around a lack of awareness of preprints and reluctance to publicly post work that has not undergone a peer review process. We additionally find weak evidence that authors preferentially select their highest quality, most novel or most significant research to post as preprints, however, authors retain an expectation that articles they post as preprints will receive more citations or be shared more widely online than articles not posted.

Source connections

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and educationPreprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Fraser, N., Mayr, P., Peters, I.. 2021-09-07. Motivations, concerns and selection biases when posting preprints: a survey of bioRxiv authors. https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.09.07.459259

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2021

Children's Species Literacy as Estimated and Desired by Biodiversity Communicators: a Mismatch with the Actual Level

While biodiversity decline continues and laypeoples knowledge about species is limited, especially in children, high-quality communication is needed to raise awareness. For this, communicators should be aware of current knowledge levels in their target groups. We compared biodiversity communicators' estimates of the average species literacy level in primary school children with the actual level. Moreover, we explored the importance that communicators placed on species literacy and the level that they desired. Estimations of childrens average knowledge level varied widely and differed from the actual level. In particular, communicators overestimated the species literacy level. Although most biodiversity communicators agreed that knowledge about species is important, their view differed as to why species literacy would be important. Moreover, communicators differed with respect to the relative importance attached to different knowledge components. Professionals may thus benefit from a detailed framework of species literacy that illustrates different aspects and values. Most importantly, our findings suggest that to bridge the gap between actual and desired knowledge levels in children effectively, biodiversity communicators first need to become more aware of current perceptions in young audiences.

scientific communication and education↗
bioRxiv2021

Gender Imbalance in the Editorial Activities of a Researcher-led Journal

Editorial decision-making is a fundamental element of the scientific enterprise. We examined whether contributions to editorial decisions at various stages of the publication process is subject to gender disparity, based on analytics collected by the biomedical researcher-led journal eLife. Despite efforts to increase women representation, the board of reviewing editors (BRE) was men-dominant (69%). Moreover, authors suggested more men from the BRE pool, even after correcting for mens numerical over-representation. Although women editors were proportionally involved in the initial editorial process, they were under-engaged in editorial activities involving reviewers and authors. Additionally, converging evidence showed gender homophily in manuscripts assignment, such that men Senior Editors over-engaged men Reviewing Editors. This tendency was stronger in more gender-balanced scientific disciplines. Together, our findings confirm that gender disparities exist along the editorial process and suggest that merely increasing the proportion of women might not be sufficient to eliminate this bias.

scientific communication and education↗