Some new preprints of interest and comments on "The case for preprints in biology"
Getting more and more into preprints (see for example these posts Guest post from Jake Scott: Building trust: a sine qua non for successful acceptance of preprints in the biological sciences and More bio preprint discussion sites ...). So am starting to browse preprint servers a bit more and I have found some recently posted preprints of interest:
- [1305.7256] tRNA signatures reveal polyphyletic origins of streamlined SAR11 genomes among the alphaproteobacteria
- Coalescence, genetic diversity and adaptation in sexual populations from Neher et al.
- Reducing assembly complexity of microbial genomes with single-molecule sequencing from Koren et al.
- Antibiotic resistance landscapes: a quantification of theory-data incompatibility for fitness landscapes from Crona et al.
- Supertrees based on the subtree prune-and-regraft distance from Whidden et al.
- Microenvironmental variables need to effect intrinsic phenotypic parameters of cancer stem cells to affect tumourigenicity from Jake Scott et al.
- GenGIS 2: Geospatial analysis of traditional and genetic biodiversity, with new gradient algorithms and an extensible plugin framework from Rob Beiko et al.
I wondered - where else might one find Biology themed preprints. And a little google searching let me to this new PLOS Biology paper which somehow I had missed a few weeks ago: The Case for Open Preprints in Biology
(Full citation: Desjardins-Proulx P, White EP, Adamson JJ, Ram K, Poisot T, et al. (2013) The Case for Open Preprints in Biology. PLoS Biol 11(5): e1001563. doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.1001563)
Wow - how perfect. In their paper they not only lay out the case for why preprints would be a good thing in biology but discuss some of the options. And in addition to PeerJ and arXiv they point to Figshare, Github, and ResearchGate.
Below is Figure 1 from their paper:
They also show that in arXiv submissions in the qBio section are going up but not nearly as much as submissions in other fields
I think this paper is worth a look for anyone interest in scientific publishing. I like their last line and will end my post with it:
Preprints are simply bypassing this model for what we believe is the progress of science: they speed up the dissemination of scientific discoveries and put on readers' shoulders the responsibility to judge originality and pertinence.