statement on use of pre-print publications

               At Ourcellves.org we seek to participate in a community interested in the biological sciences and willing to engage in productive and enlightening conversations. Some of these conversations can be controversial and we welcome them. We have decided to share content accessed through pre-print repositories, but importantly want to echo the caveats of BioRxiv.org that “No endorsement of an article’s methods assumptions, conclusions or scientific quality… are implied…” At Ourcellves.org our use of data published on pre-print repositories does not imply endorsement. We do not suggest that the content shared has been validated or that it should be used to make decisions about health-care or public policy.

                Science is a formalized methodology. It attempts to describe the natural world through observation, hypothesis testing, falsification and discussion. The results of this methodology are always subject to rigorous, informed and thoughtful debate. This is true for data, analysis and conclusions published in both traditional scientific journals and in new online pre-print repositories.There are benefits and drawbacks to publishing data on pre-print repositories.

Benefits

• Accessibility: A long standing difficulty within the scientific community is the dissemination of the knowledge produced by research at publically funded institutions. If the public funds the research, why should access to it be limited to individuals or institutions able or willing to pay exorbitant fees for access? The advent of newer policies such as “Open-access” have improved the situation, but not completely fixed it. Publication and accessing of research findings on “pre-print” repositories is currently free for anyone that is interested in the science. Still, there is no guarantee this will always be the case.
• Feedback: Research and findings will be examined, not only by peers within a scientists’ field, but theoretically by anyone with any background. Interesting conversations can be had with other experts about the impact of the science other branches of knowledge and in potential applications of the discoveries. The most widely cited repository for pre-prints, bioRxiv.org, specifically states that by posting to their site “authors are able to make their findings immediately available to the scientific community and receive feedback…” Clearly then the intent of the pre-print repositories is to improve the quality of science and not to provide “work-arounds” to rigorous study.
• Improvement in publishing rate: It takes a very long time to publish a paper. A 2016 article in Nature found that the median time from submission to publication is around 100 days. During this period the authors are not receiving meaningful feedback from peers. On the other hand, if their work is published in pre-print servers, authors get immediate feedback on the quality of their data, analysis and conclusions. They may even get feedback from experts outside of their fields leading to opportunities for collaboration and applications.

Drawbacks

• • Lack of review: One of the major benefits of the peer-review process is that experts in the authors’ field of study are able to provide feedback without the need of extensive contextualization of the data, analysis or conclusions. Although it might be ultimately necessary to improve the quality of communication in the article, most expert peer-reviewers can complete the revision of the article without the need of extensive introductory statements or background information. It might be that pre-print publication improves the quality of science communication, while peer-reviewed publication improves the technical aspect of the research reported.
  • Statements of conflict: The use of scientific communication to promote the use of a procedure or treatment is very old. As a matter of fact, most scientific articles carry the tag “Advertisement”. Still, the peer-review process can expose the interests, behind particular hypothesis and reveal the motivations behind analysis and conclusions. Statements on conflict of interest are not required in pre-print publications, although that may change.
  • Increased speed of change: Keeping up with scientific literature is daunting. Currently, scientists searching through this vast literature can be confident that at least three experts have reviewed the publications before making them available. This in no way makes the published results a “law of nature”. It requires careful consideration before integrating it into your research design and conclusions. Still, it reduces the possibility of encountering published research with poor experimental designs, inappropriate measurements and lack of rigor while reaching conclusions.

                Because we seek to explore the newest concepts and encourage discussion of both established and emerging ideas in biological sciences we will use pre-print publications as sources for some of the articles on our website. We will always include the caveats stated above about these publications.