RSP - OA

Sharing Pre-Prints

Publications go through many different versions before it becomes the full final published version, but there are many benefits to making these earlier versions open.

What can you share, when and why

• Most publisher will allow you to share the submitted manuscript freely, as they have had little involvement with it at this point, but will restrict how you can share your Accepted Manuscript and Final Published version. If you are unsure about whether you can share it or not, you can use a service like Sherpa Romeo or HowCanIShareIt.com.
• Sharing an early version of your article allows it to get immediate interest and engagement, and may even result in feedback that may inform your changes as you work through peer review changes.
• Content on pre-print repositories won't generally have been through a formal peer review process, and repositories vary in terms of the criteria of content the host, so it is important to consider the research that is posted there carefully; however, preprint repositories have been highly valued for their ability to rapidly disseminate findings.
• In order to help ensure your preprints remain open and shareable, you may wish to apply a Creative Commons licence to the manuscript when you deposit them in a repository.

Where to share pre-prints

	ArXiv - ArXiv is one of the biggest and most long standing of pre-print platforms, having been founded in 1991. ArXiv hosts pre-prints from the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science, quantitative biology, quantitative finance, statistics, electrical engineering and systems science, and economics.
	BioRxiv -  Much like ArXiv, BioRxiv is a subject specific pre-print repository, hosting pre-prints from the life sciences. The categories of research article BioRxiv hosts includes Animal Behavior and Cognition, Biochemistry, Bioengineering, Bioinformatics, Biophysics, Cancer Biology, Cell Biology, Developmental Biology, Ecology, Evolutionary Biology, Genetics, Genomics, Immunology, Microbiology, Molecular Biology, Neuroscience, Paleontology, Pathology, Pharmacology and Toxicology, Physiology, Plant Biology, Scientific Communication and Education, Synthetic Biology, Systems Biology and Zoology.
	Social Science Research Network (SSRN) - Currently run by Elsevier, the SSRN is a repository for preprints across the Applied, Health, Life and Physical Science, as well as the Humanities and Social Sciences.
	Open Science Framework (OSF) - Overseen by the Center for Open Science, the OSF hosts preprints across disciplines, which particularly supports research that is interdisciplinary or in subject areas that do not have a a prominent repository like ArXiv. Supporting its preprint repository, OSF also provides a searchable indexing service for Preprint servers as it hosts a number of subject specific preprint repositories including PsyArXiv for Psychology and PaleorXiv for Palaeontology.
	Directory of Open Access Preprint Repositories (DOAPR) - If you cannot find the right preprint repository to host your research, DOAPR may be able to help. DOAPR lists preprint repositories from a variety of subject areas, and allows them to searched both by discipline and by function. Using DOAPR, you should be able to find a repository relevant to your subject area, or at least an interdisciplinary repository appropriate for your work.

Helpful Links and Resources

Sharing Non-publishable Research (Grey Literature, Null/Neutral Results)

Many academics find that they have a large amount of data and research that goes unshared - maybe because it was inconclusive or didn't have a narrative that would be sellable to a journal - but it is important to share this work to help advance research.

What kind of research is often left unpublished

• Data that is either incomplete or simply gathered from a small exploratory study.
• Results that are neutral/null and therefore have been left in favour of finding something else.
• Research papers that aren't particularly novel or exciting and thus harder to get published.
• Work that was left as the researcher have time to prepare it for publication in a journal.
• Preprints that have been rejected due to a lack of novelty that would draw readership, or that are simply unable to be published in the most appropriate journal due to publication charges.
• Replication studies that validate results rather than challenge the consensus.

Why should this work be shared if it won't be published

• Prevalence of Publication Bias - Research only develops with ‘self-correction’, but not all developments are marketable to journals. Publication bias is where only research with “significant” conclusions, narrative and/or novelty are published, meaning that developments that could lead to innovative future work are left unshared.
• Supporting Reproducibility Studies - A good way to maintain this 'self-correction' of research is through reproducibility studies, but as this work is reproducing work rather than new work, it is not as encouraged. Having avenues to share this work when it is undertaken helps instil trust that conclusions are accurate and reliable,
• Avoiding Unnecessary Reproduction - While ensuring reproducibility is to be commended, not all work needs to be replicated. Often studies find no correlations through null or neutral results, and while these studies may go no further, they should still be shared to cut down on the potential wasted time of other researchers who, without knowing that this work has already happened, may replicate the study only to find these null results.

Where to share non-publishable work

Open Peer Review

Participating in open peer review or publishing in venues with open peer review can help with highlighting conflicts of interest, affording a transparency that instil a trust in the publication process.

Types of Peer Review

	Single Anonymous Peer Review - where the identity of the author(s) is known to the reviewer, but not vice-versa. This type of peer review allows the review to make their comments with a knowledge of how the publications fits in the context of the author's researcher, and affords honest reflection without fear of reproach. However, this does allow for the potential of bias and discrimination.
	Double Anonymous Peer Review - where the author and reviewer and both anonymous. This style of peer review should reduce discrimination based on the identity of the author, however knowledge of the author(s) can help reviewers to make a fuller judgement.
	Open Peer Review - where all parties are known to one another. Some reviewers may be reluctant to undertake open peer review for fear of being identified as the author of a negative review, however the transparency of open peer review often encourages accountability and civility, and reviewers may be motivated to be more thorough as they will be associated with the review which sometimes may be released with the article.

Avenues for Open Peer Review

Typically, it will be the journal's own decision whether they adopt Open Peer Review as part of their practices. You may wish to consider peer review style when you are picking which journal to submit to, but there are other ways your work can benefit from not only Open Peer Review, but Transparent Peer Review (i.e. open peer review where the reviewer's response is published with the work).

Helpful Links and Resources