Content uploaded by Gideon Gywa Deme
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Gideon Gywa Deme on Jul 19, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
Content uploaded by Bruno Eleres Soares
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Bruno Eleres Soares on Jun 15, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
The promise of community-driven preprints in ecology and 1"
evolution 2"
Authors: Daniel W.A. Noble1, Zoe A. Xirocostas2, Nicholas C. Wu3, April R. Martinig4, Rafaela A. 3"
Almeida5, Kevin R. Bairos-Novak6, Heikel Balti7, Michael G. Bertram8,9,10, Louis Bliard11, Jack A. Brand8, 4"
Ilha Byrne13, Ying-Chi Chan14, Dena J. Clink15, Quentin Corbel16, Ricardo A. Correia17, Jordann Crawford-5"
Ash18, Antica Culina19, Elvira D’Bastiani20, Gideon G. Deme21,22, Melina de Souza Leite23, Félicie 6"
Dhellemmes24,25, Shreya Dimri26, Szymek M. Drobniak4,27, Alexander D. Elsy28, Susan E. Everingham29, 7"
Samuel J. L. Gascoigne30, Matthew J. Grainger31, Gavin C. Hossack32, Knut Anders Hovstad33, Ed R. 8"
Ivimey-Cook34, Matt Lloyd Jones35, Ineta Kačergytė36, Georg Küstner37, Dalton C. Leibold1, Magdalena M. 9"
Mair38, Jake Martin8,9,39, Ayumi Mizuno4, 40, Iain R. Moodie41, David Moreau42, Rose E. O’Dea43, James A. 10"
Orr44, Matthieu Paquet45, Rabindra Parajuli46, Joel L. Pick47, Patrice Pottier1,4, Marija Purgar19, Pablo Recio1, 11"
Dominique G. Roche48, Raphaël Royauté49, Saeed Shafiei Sabet50, Julio M. G. Segovia26, Inês Silva51, 12"
Alfredo Sánchez-Tójar26, Bruno E. Soares52, Birgit Szabo53, Elina Takola54, Eli S.J. Thoré8,55, Bishnu 13"
Timilsina56, Natalie E. van Dis57, Wilco C.E.P. Verberk58, Stefan J.G. Vriend59, Kristoffer H. Wild1,60, 14"
Coralie Williams4, Yefeng Yang4, Shinichi Nakagawa4, 61*, Malgorzata Lagisz4,*
15"
16"
Affiliations 17"
1Division of Ecology and Evolution, Research School of Biology, The Australian National University, 18"
Canberra, ACT 2600, Australia 19"
2 School of Life Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Technology Sydney, NSW 2007, Australia 20"
3Hawkesbury Institute for the Environment, Western Sydney University, Richmond, NSW 2753, Australia 21"
4Evolution and Ecology Research Centre, School of Biological, Earth and Environmental Sciences, 22"
University of New South Wales, Sydney, NSW 2052, Australia 23"
5Laboratory of Freshwater Ecology, Evolution and Conservation, KU Leuven, Belgium 24"
6School of the Environment, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia 25"
7 Chrono-environnement UMR 6249, CNRS, Université Bourgogne Franche-Comté, F-25000, Besançon, 26"
France
27"
8Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 28"
Umeå 907 36, Sweden 29"
9Department of Zoology, Stockholm University, Stockholm 114 18, Sweden 30"
10School of Biological Sciences, Monash University, Melbourne 3800, Australia 31"
11 Department of Evolutionary Biology and Environmental Studies, University of Zurich, Switzerland 32"
12 Department of Wildlife, Fish, and Environmental Studies, Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences, 33"
Umeå, Sweden 34"
13 School of the Environment, The University of Queensland, Brisbane 4072, Australia 35"
14 Swiss Ornithological Institute, Sempach, Switzerland 36"
15 K. Lisa Yang Center for Conservation Bioacoustics, Cornell Lab of Ornithology, Cornell University, 37"
Ithaca, NY, USA 38"
16 Theoretical and Experimental Ecology Station (SETE), CNRS, France 39"
17 Biodiversity Unit, University of Turku, 20014 Turku, Finland 40"
18 Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra ACT 41"
19 Ruđer Bošković Institute, Zagreb, Croatia 42"
20 Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles 43"
21 Department of Biology, Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH 44106, USA 44"
22 Department of Science Laboratory Technology, University of Jos, Jos, Nigeria 45"
23 Department of Ecology, University of São Paulo, Brazil 46"
24 Cluster of Excellence “Science of Intelligence”, Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany 47"
25 Center for Adaptive Rationality, Max Planck Institute for Human Development, Berlin, 48"
Germany 49"
26 Department of Evolutionary Biology, Bielefeld University, Germany 50"
27 Institute of Environmental Sciences, Jagiellonian University, Krakow, Poland 51"
28 Department of Environmental Systems Science, ETH Zurich, Switzerland 52"
29 Institute of Plant Sciences and Oeschger Centre for Climate Change Research, University of Bern 53"
30 Department of Biology, University of Oxford, United Kingdom 54"
31 Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Trondheim, Norway 55"
32 Port Perry, Ontario, Canada 56"
33 Norwegian Biodiversity Information Centre, Trondheim, Norway 57"
34 School of Biodiversity, One Health and Veterinary Medicine, University of Glasgow, UK 58"
35 European Centre for the Environment and Human Health, University of Exeter Medical School, Penryn, 59"
United Kingdom 60"
36 Ecology department, Swedish University of Agricultural sciences, Sweden 61"
37 Department of Animal Ecology and Tropical Biology, Biocenter, University of Würzburg, Würzburg, 62"
Germany 63"
38 Statistical Ecotoxicology, Bayreuth Center of Ecology and Environmental Research (BayCEER), 64"
University of Bayreuth, Germany 65"
39 School of Life and Environmental Sciences, Deakin University, Waurn Ponds, 3216, Australia 66"
40 Department of Biology, Faculty of Science, Hokkaido University, Japan 67"
41 Department of Biology, Lund University, Sweden 68"
42 Centre for Brain Research, University of Auckland, New Zealand 69"
43 School of Agriculture, Food and Ecosystem Sciences, University of Melbourne 70"
44 Department of Biology, University of Oxford 71"
45 Theoretical and Experimental Ecology Station (SETE), CNRS, France 72"
46 Department of Geosciences, Florida Atlantic University, Boca Raton, FL, USA 73"
47 Institute of Ecology and Evolution, University of Edinburgh, UK 74"
48 Department of Biology, Carleton University, Canada 75"
49 Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, AgroParisTech, UMR EcoSys, Palaiseau, France 76"
50 Fisheries Department, Faculty of Natural Resources, University of Guilan, Swomeh Sara, Iran 77"
51 Center for Advanced Systems Understanding (CASUS), Helmholtz-Zentrum Dresden-Rossendorf 78"
(HZDR), Görlitz, Germany 79"
52 Institute of Environmental Change & Society, University of Regina 80"
53 Division of Behavioural Ecology, University of Bern, Switzerland 81"
54 Department of Computational Landscape Ecology, Helmholtz Center for Environmental Research - UFZ, 82"
Leipzig, Germany 83"
55 TRANSfarm - Science, Engineering, & Technology Group, KU Leuven, Lovenjoel 3360, Belgium 84"
56 The Arctic University Museum of Norway, The Arctic University of Norway (UiT), Norway 85"
57 Helsinki Institute of Life Sciences, Helsinki University, Finland 86"
58 Department of Ecology, Radboud University Nijmegen, Nijmegen 87"
59 Netherlands Institute of Ecology (NIOO-KNAW), Wageningen, Netherlands 88"
60 School of BioSciences, The University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia. 89"
61 Department of Biological Sciences, University of Alberta, CW 405, Biological Sciences Building, 90"
Edmonton, AB T6G 2E9, Canada 91"
92"
corresponding author, daniel.noble@anu.edu.au 93"
* equal contribution 94"
5-60, Authors listed in alphabetical order 95"
96"
Abstract 97"
Publishing preprints is quickly becoming commonplace in ecology and evolutionary biology. Preprints can 98"
facilitate the rapid sharing of scientific knowledge establishing precedence and enabling feedback from the 99"
research community before peer review. Yet, significant barriers to preprint use exist including language 100"
barriers, a lack of understanding about the benefits of preprints and a lack of diversity in the types of research 101"
outputs accepted (e.g., reports). Community driven preprint initiatives can allow a research community to 102"
come together to break down these barriers to improve equity and coverage of global knowledge. Here, we 103"
explore the first preprints uploaded to EcoEvoRxiv, a community-driven preprint server for ecologists and 104"
evolutionary biologists, to characterise preprint practices in ecology, evolution and conservation. Our 105"
perspective piece highlights some of the unique initiatives that EcoEvoRxiv has taken to break down barriers 106"
to scientific publishing by exploring the composition of articles, how gender and career stage influence 107"
preprint use, whether preprints are associated with greater open science principles (e.g., code and data 108"
sharing), and tracking preprint publication outcomes. Our analysis identifies areas that we still need to 109"
improve upon but highlight how community-driven initiatives, such as EcoEvoRxiv, can play a crucial role in 110"
shaping publishing practices in biology. 111"
1. Introduction 112"
Publishing preprints – papers communicating non-peer-reviewed research findings – is now an entrenched 113"
practice across a multitude of scientific disciplines [1]. Preprints in biology have had a slower uptake relative 114"
to other disciplines [2], but new discipline-specific preprint servers, such as EcoEvoRxiv 115"
(https://ecoevorxiv.org), provide a means by which ecologists and evolutionary biologists can disseminate 116"
research findings. Preprints attempt to break down barriers to scientific publishing by: 1) increasing the 117"
visibility of research and the speed at which research findings become available, which can lead to more 118"
citations [e.g., 3,4]; 2) helping establish the precedence of research findings; 3) removing financial barriers to 119"
open access publication; and 4) enabling feedback from the research community [5–7]. Ultimately, preprints 120"
can facilitate the rapid sharing of scientific knowledge that can have significant impacts on fundamental and 121"
applied knowledge globally [8]. 122"
Preprint servers can empower researchers to make their research findings more accessible, open, and 123"
transparent but only if they are used as forums for spreading and discussing findings within a research 124"
community. However, significant barriers to the widespread adoption of preprints remain, ranging from a 125"
lack of clarity around preprint policies in journals [9] to a stigma within the research community that 126"
preprints are of poor quality [10] (but see [11]). Nonetheless, we lack an understanding of the factors that 127"
influence preprint use in ecology and evolution. Such an understanding may help improve current initiatives 128"
(see below), inform future ones and allow us to work harder in further breaking down barriers to scientific 129"
publishing. 130"
EcoEvoRxiv is one of the few community-driven preprint servers that has paved the way for new initiatives, 131"
by accepting multilingual preprints, registered reports, and non-traditional research reports. EcoEvoRxiv also 132"
promotes peer review and community discussion in the hopes of improving the quality of preprints and 133"
speeding up their peer-reviewed publication (e.g., Peer Community In – PCI [12]). Peer Community In 134"
allows for fast, constructive peer review around a preprint with peer reviews being transparent and published 135"
online [12]. 136"
Here, we explore the first preprints uploaded to EcoEvoRxiv to characterise preprint practices in ecology and 137"
evolution. We aim to understand: 1) in what countries authors who use EcoEvoRxiv are located; 2) the 138"
taxonomic diversity study systems across preprints; 3) whether preprint server use depends on career stage 139"
and gender; 4) the extent to which authors make use of preprint servers for reports and community-driven 140"
peer review; 5) the extent to which data and code are shared in preprints; and 6) how many preprints remain 141"
unpublished, and for those that are published, how long it took for them to become published. In the process, 142"
we also provide a summary of what makes EcoEvoRxiv distinct from other preprint servers to help further 143"
clarify the benefits of using community-driven preprint servers to disseminate research findings. 144"
2. Getting to know your EcoEvoRxiv preprint server 145"
EcoEvoRxiv is run by the Society for Open, Reliable, and Transparent Ecology and Evolutionary Biology 146"
(SORTEE)[13]. Originally launched in 2018 on the Center for Open Science preprint platform, EcoEvoRxiv 147"
has become a popular preprint server for ecologists and evolutionary biologists. The server has since been 148"
adopted by the California Digital Library (CDL). Editors are ecologists and evolutionary biologists from 149"
across the globe who volunteer their time to screen papers and push new initiatives in the preprint space. 150"
EcoEvoRxiv allows authors to post both preprints and postprints (also known as author-accepted 151"
manuscripts). While preprints are versions of manuscripts posted by authors before peer-review, postprints 152"
are versions of peer-reviewed and accepted articles but without typesetting and formatting by a journal. The 153"
main reason for publishing postprints on a preprint server is to ensure published articles are openly accessible 154"
to everyone without a paywall (i.e., green open access). Postprints can be published anytime, provided that 155"
journals allow it (which most do; see https://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/). 156"
"
Figure 1- Summary of articles posted to EcoEvoRxiv. A) Number of articles (preprints and postprints)
published on EcoEvoRxiv between 2018 and 2023. EcoEvoRxiv was established in June 2018 before the
launch in November 2018. Notable milestones include EcoEvoRxiv transitioning to the California Digital
Library (CDL), the acceptance of preprints and postprints in Spanish and Portuguese, and the acceptance
of the first IUCN Red List Ecosystem report; B) Geographic origin of the preprints and postprints uploaded
to EcoEvoRxiv, inferred from the country of affiliation of the submitting author; C) Taxa used/covered in
the articles posted to EcoEvoRxiv (n = 1080 articles); D) Types of preprints accepted on EcoEvoRxiv (n =
620 articles). E) Academic age of authors posting to EcoEvoRxiv along with the gender of the submitting
author. Values lower than zero are indicative of authors who uploaded preprints before their first scientific
publication in a journal. Map base source: R Package "maps" v.3.4.2. Shapefile: Natural
Earth https://www.naturalearthdata.com/about/terms-of-use/.
(a) Overview of EcoEvoRxiv preprints (and postprints) 157"
To better understand preprint (and postprint) use on EcoEvoRxiv, we downloaded metadata on the articles 158"
available on EcoEvoRxiv as of 2023-09-30 (see Supplement for more details on methods). We consider both 159"
preprints and postprints as ‘articles’. After removing five duplicate titles – suggesting that a few authors 160"
created multiple submissions for the same preprint rather than updating the existing submission – we had 161"
data for a total of 1216 articles with ~55–60 preprints published approximately monthly in the last two years 162"
(figure 1A). EcoEvoRxiv hosts articles from authors based in 56 countries, with 90% of the articles coming 163"
from just 17 countries. North America, Australia, and European countries upload the most preprints, with 164"
many fewer coming from countries in Africa, Central America, and parts of Asia (figure 1B). Articles 165"
covered all major taxonomic groups, with the most common being vertebrates (47.2%), plants (21.9%), and 166"
invertebrates (17.5%) (figure 1C). 167"
(b) Diversifying article types on EcoEvoRxiv: overcoming the ‘grey literature’ problem 168"
Accepting a greater diversity of article types allows EcoEvoRxiv to help deal with the ‘grey literature’ 169"
problem, whereby data that are relevant for research syntheses are not published in typical peer-reviewed 170"
journals [14,15]. EcoEvoRxiv has made a concerted effort to diversify the types of articles accepted. This is 171"
reflected by 5% of the articles on EcoEvoRxiv being books, book chapters, reports, and other research output 172"
types, which are typically considered ‘grey literature’ in ecology and evolutionary biology. As a result, 173"
articles on EcoEvoRxiv are more diverse than those on preprint servers which have more restrictive 174"
submission policies. For example, bioRxiv only accepts research articles (https://www.biorxiv.org/submit-a-175"
manuscript). 176"
Typical research articles are still the most common type of preprint on EcoEvoRxiv (48.4%), followed by 177"
reviews and meta-analyses (26.6%) and opinion papers (9.5%) (figure 1D). Currently, EcoEvoRxiv does not 178"
host many reports, particularly from government or industry, but has formed fruitful partnerships with the 179"
International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN). For example, IUCN Red-list Ecosystem Reports are 180"
now posted to EcoEvoRxiv and our community has been able to work closely with the IUCN to ensure these 181"
documents meet the IUCN requirements. We would encourage authors to consider posting books, book 182"
chapters, and reports to ensure that they are openly accessible and more easily found. EcoEvoRxiv articles are 183"
given a unique DOI and are indexed on Google Scholar. 184"
(c) Breaking down language barriers to scientific communication: improving diversity and 185"
data representation globally 186"
A significant barrier to the communication of research findings is the fact that they are primarily 187"
communicated in English [16–18]. Research communication through a single language has major 188"
consequences for the global distribution of knowledge, resulting in knowledge gaps across some of the most 189"
biodiverse and threatened regions in the world [19,20]. Such gaps also impact research syntheses and meta-190"
analyses because they create a distorted picture of our knowledge base that can affect future research, policy 191"
development and decision-making [20–23]. 192"
EcoEvoRxiv is the only preprint server to date that breaks down language barriers to scientific 193"
communication by accepting not only English, but also Spanish, Portuguese and French language articles. 194"
EcoEvoRxiv plans to expand to other languages as new non-English editors become available. Such 195"
initiatives are incredibly important if we are to begin filling global voids of scientific knowledge. However, 196"
multilingual initiatives have been slow to take off on EcoEvoRxiv, with only a few Spanish articles, and a 197"
single Portuguese article, posted since starting to accept non-English articles in 2023. Part of the challenge in 198"
getting authors to submit non-English articles is the lack of awareness of EcoEvoRxiv in non-English 199"
speaking countries, cultural differences in the perception of preprints, and a strong reliance on traditional 200"
publishing models that typically mandate publishing in English [24]. 201"
(d) Generational and gender-based gaps in preprinting practices 202"
Research papers can take a while to be published (see below). However, Early and Mid-Career Researchers 203"
(EMCRs) (~10 years post-PhD) are under pressure to publish rapidly to be competitive in job applications, 204"
promotions, and obtaining grants to progress their careers [7,25]. Preprints are one way EMCRs can achieve 205"
faster dissemination and greater visibility [4]. As such, EMCRs may be expected to make use of preprints 206"
more than colleagues at later career stages. We collected data on the ‘academic age’ of submitting authors by 207"
looking at Google Scholar profiles of authors (when available) and recording their first year of publication in 208"
a peer-reviewed journal. While this is a rough estimate of career stage, there was evidence that the number of 209"
preprints posted decreases with later career stages (negative binomial glm: year slope = -0.1, SE: 0, p < 210"
0.001, n = 42 years). Most preprints were submitted by authors who published their first paper in the last ~10 211"
years (figure 1E), with the median year since first publication being 2013 (mean = 2010.6; SD = 9.9, n = 212"
1214). These patterns support the expectation that EMCRs may use preprints to make their work more visible 213"
and disseminate their findings more quickly. However, we acknowledge that validating this conclusion does 214"
require more rigorous experimental approaches. 215"
Gender differences in preprint use and publication outcomes have also been observed in several research 216"
fields, including ecology and evolutionary biology [26,27]. Therefore, such discrepancies are expected to 217"
manifest in preprint use on EcoEvoRxiv, but it is unclear to what extent. Understanding gender publishing 218"
patterns is challenging with observational data such as ours because we cannot know the gender of authors 219"
for certain, but we can use a data-driven approach to ascertain the probability that a particular name is of a 220"
given gender (man or woman). To obtain a rough idea of an author’s gender, we used the R package gender 221"
(v.0.6.0; [28]) to predict the most likely gender of the submitting author of a preprint. We only used 222"
algorithm-assigned names where the gender was identified with 95% certainty. For the remaining names, we 223"
performed manual searches to determine gender based on the pronouns and photographs from professional 224"
and personal websites. We acknowledge that our approach does not capture self-assigned and non-binary 225"
genders. As such, our assumptions about an author’s gender identity may be incorrect. Our data on gender 226"
had only two missing values–one where the first name of the submitting author was missing and the other 227"
one for a collective submission. As expected, we found that women were less likely to publish on 228"
EcoEvoRxiv compared to men (women: 37.8%), which may reflect the broader publishing disparities 229"
between male and female scientists [26]. 230"
3. Following the journey of a preprint on EcoEvoRxiv: from submission to 231"
publication 232"
"
Figure 2- Summary of the publication status of articles on EcoEvoRxiv. A) Time between uploading an
preprint to EcoEvoRxiv and its publication as a peer-reviewed journal article. Articles that were published
within 2 months (60 days) of being submitted are considered postprints and are not included in this figure.
B) Access status of articles linked to EcoEvoRxiv preprints classified as “Open Access” or “Not Open
Access”. “Unknown” status is for articles not explicitly identified as being open access or not on the
Unpaywall platform. C) Sub-types of open access status of articles linked to EcoEvoRxiv preprints. For full
details on the meaning of each category see
https://support.unpaywall.org/support/solutions/articles/44001777288-what-do-the-types-of-oa-status-
green-gold-hybrid-and-bronze-mean-.
(a) Science takes time, but publication could take longer 233"
Increased competition in science has raised the bar with respect to the amount of data required for publication 234"
[7]. This requirement is a good outcome if it results in higher-impact research that better clarifies our 235"
understanding of the natural world, but it does come at a cost for the speed of research dissemination [7]. 236"
Preprints have been proposed as a way to disseminate research more quickly as it can take a long time before 237"
results are ultimately published [6,7]. However, data on the time to publication is needed to quantify the real 238"
benefit of preprints in this context. 239"
We estimated how long it takes to publish a research paper in ecology and evolution by recording the time 240"
between when an article was first posted on EcoEvoRxiv, and its final acceptance in a peer-reviewed journal. 241"
In total, 383 papers remained unpublished (31.5%, n = 1216) at the time when these data were collected. Not 242"
all of these papers, however, are anticipated to be published in a peer-reviewed journal (e.g., reports). 243"
Nonetheless, the median time to publication for preprints was 237 days (8 months) (mean = 286.4; SD = 244"
193.9 days) with the maximum time to publication being 1549 days or 4.2 years (figure 2A). Our results 245"
largely confirm the extended timeframes that most authors experience between writing their research papers 246"
and their publication. 247"
(b) Cautious ‘open’-mindedness of research in preprints 248"
In addition to speeding up dissemination, preprints and postprints can also be a useful way to ensure that 249"
research remains open and accessible to the research community irrespective of the accessibility of the final 250"
peer-reviewed paper [6,7]. We evaluated whether articles hosted at EcoEvoRxiv, and that were also published 251"
in a journal, were published open access. The open access status of each published article was obtained using 252"
the R package roadoi (v.0.7.2) to connect to the Unpaywall platform [29]. Most of the published articles 253"
were open access [80.5% (n = 351 out of 436 where the status was known); figure 2A]; however, 19.5% (n = 254"
85) were published behind paywalls. For articles published in open access journals, the type of open access 255"
also varied widely (e.g., Gold, Hybrid, Green OA etc., figure 2B). 256"
Data and code sharing are also key components of open science [30]. In the spirit of ‘openness’, we expected 257"
data and code sharing among preprints to be greater than in many papers published in research journals 258"
[30,31]. Despite this, we found that 54.1% (n = 232) of articles relying on data on EcoEvoRxiv did not share 259"
data, and 56.9% (n = 246) did not share code (counting only data-based articles, i.e., excluding reviews, 260"
commentaries or theoretical works). 261"
Authors may be reluctant to share data and code for preprints because of the perceived concern that others 262"
may acquire and use their data and code before publication in a journal. Authors of 28.7% (n = 123) of 263"
articles that did not share data at the preprint stage did ultimately share data when the article was published; 264"
whereas authors of 35.2% (n = 151) never shared data. However, 36.1% (n = 155) shared data at both stages. 265"
The same was true for code. Overall, 16.8% (n = 72) preprints had no open code at the preprint stage but did 266"
at the published article stage and authors of 45.2% (n = 194) preprints did not share code at either stage. 267"
However, 38% (n = 163) shared code at both stages. Relatively low code and data-sharing practices in our 268"
sample is consistent with analyses of sharing practices for published articles (e.g., [31]), even for journals 269"
with strict public data archiving policies [30]. 270"
4. Paving our future to open, transparent and community-driven science 271"
Our analysis has allowed us to better understand preprinting/postprinting practices in EcoEvoRxiv. Overall, 272"
EcoEvoRxiv articles are diverse but with primary research articles on vertebrates comprising most of the 273"
articles posted. North America, Europe and Australia use EcoEvoRxiv the most with very few non-English 274"
language articles to date. Submitting authors who were earlier in their career and more often with ‘male-275"
associated names’ tended to use EcoEvoRxiv the most. Articles posted to EcoEvoRxiv tend to take up to 8 276"
months to become published with many articles not being open access. Code and data sharing was also 277"
relatively uncommon at the preprint stage. At the same time, we attempted to collect data on community 278"
discussion around preprints no such data was found on preprint landing pages, likely reflecting inadequate 279"
functionality and cross-linking with sources where such discussion is occurring. Based on the insights from 280"
our analysis, we provide recommendations to authors and the scientific community on ways they can further 281"
promote open and transparent research through preprints: 282"
• First, share your data and code at the preprint stage. Sharing data and code early can help improve the 283"
quality of research, establish precedence, and improve the transparency and computational 284"
reproducibility of scientific findings [25]. Reassuringly, sharing data and code is rarely associated 285"
with the ‘scooping’ of research findings [32]. If authors are worried about data being used 286"
unintentionally, clear information surrounding its reuse can be included in a license (see 287"
https://choosealicense.com). Data can also be archived with an embargo on its reuse [33]. 288"
• Second, take advantage of peer-reviewing services such as Peer Community In (PCI). The time 289"
between posting a preprint and publication is still quite long (~8 months). One possible explanation is 290"
that preprints are not being sent to suitable journals or are struggling to get into review, slowing down 291"
constructive feedback that can improve the quality of a paper. Using PCI circumvents editorial 292"
decisions without review, yet only 1.6% (n = 10) used PCI. Using such services will ensure that 293"
authors receive faster feedback on a paper. Ninety-three journals currently accept PCI reviews and 294"
recommendations when considering a paper for publication (https://peercommunityin.org/pci-295"
friendly-journals/). 296"
• Third, seek out and contribute to constructive feedback on preprints [6]. While it is clear that 297"
preprints help establish precedence and allow findings to be openly accessible, it still seems rare that 298"
constructive discussions form around preprints in an open forum (e.g. bioRxiv [34]). Unfortunately, 299"
the EcoEvoRxiv website does not provide opportunities for discussion given the limitations of the web 300"
server at this point in time. As such, we could not accurately assess how much discourse around a 301"
given preprint occurs. Clearly, as a community, we need to provide better platforms that document 302"
discussions around preprint findings. Such discussions help authors improve their work and 303"
communicate their findings more effectively (when done constructively, of course). One way to 304"
facilitate such discussions may be to use open preprint peer-review services such as Peer Community 305"
In (PCI) or PubPeer (see also [35]) to provide feedback on preprints. 306"
• Finally, keep your preprints updated. While most preprints get seamlessly connected and merged with 307"
their published version, some remain ‘disconnected’ as separate articles. Incorrect cross-linking by 308"
indexing platforms (e.g., Google Scholar) can create confusion and lead to frustration among authors. 309"
Thankfully, the reasons for unmatched preprints and publications are well-understood and easily 310"
rectified. They often result from a mismatch between preprint and published metadata (e.g., titles and 311"
author details). For example, nearly one-third of articles changed their title from preprint submission 312"
to publication [32.3% (n = 199)]. We found that mismatched metadata almost always contributed to 313"
preprints and published articles not being matched automatically in Google Scholar. We recommend 314"
that authors update their preprints with the publication DOI when accepted to journals, especially if 315"
their title has changed. This is very easy for authors to do on EcoEvoRxiv and ensures that the preprint 316"
is correctly linked to the published article and citations are appropriately merged. Adding DOIs will 317"
also create a link between the final preprint and the published paper so that, no matter the open access 318"
status of the publication, the research findings will remain openly accessible, saving costs for authors 319"
(i.e., by not having to pay open access fees) and improving the visibility and use of research. 320"
Despite the early successes of the new initiatives taken by EcoEvoRxiv, as described above, much work 321"
remains to be done to improve the understanding and use of pre- and postprints within our community. We 322"
view this perspective piece as a small step towards achieving that goal. We hope that readers are more 323"
familiar with the benefits of using community-driven preprint servers and the unique initiatives they can 324"
pursue. Community-driven preprint servers can set their own agenda and are driven by the needs and desires 325"
of the community. Supporting these initiatives should be a priority for all researchers. Volunteers at 326"
EcoEvoRxiv are encouraged to remain open to new and innovative ways to improve publication and open 327"
science practices. We believe that the future of preprints is bright, and community-driven initiatives, such as 328"
EcoEvoRxiv will play a crucial role in the future of scientific publishing. 329"
Data accessibility 330"
All data and code can be found on GitHub at: https://github.com/daniel1noble/ecoevo_1000 331"
Competing interests 332"
The authors would like to acknowledge competing interests on the perspectives presented in this paper given 333"
that many (DWAN, SN, ML) are founding members of EcoEvoRxiv and/or are part of the EcoEvoRxiv 334"
committee. 335"
Funding 336"
DWAN would also like to thank the Australian Research Council for a Future Fellowship (FT220100276). 337"
SN and ML are supported by the Australian Research Council (ARC) Discovery Project Grants 338"
(DP210100812 and DP230101248). 339"
Acknowledgements 340"
We would like to thank the California Digital Library (CDL) and the CDL team (particularly, Alainna 341"
Wrigley, Justin Gonder, Lisa Schiff, Catherine Mitchell, Hardy Pottinger and Amanda Karby) for their 342"
support in hosting and maintaining EcoEvoRxiv for the Society for Open, Reliable, and Transparent Ecology 343"
and Evolutionary Biology (SORTEE). We would like to thank Gabriela Hidalgo and Daisy Larios for helping 344"
connect us with the IUCN and facilitating discussions to make EcoEvoRxiv a place where IUCN reports can 345"
be posted. Finally, we would also like to thank the endless number of SORTEE volunteers, and those 346"
especially on the EcoEvoRxiv Committee, who have helped to make EcoEvoRxiv a success. This paper 347"
emerged from a hackathon at the 2023 SORTEE conference, and we thank delegates who attended the 348"
session but could not be part of this paper. 349"
References 350"
1. Ginsparg P. 2011 ArXiv at 20. Nature 476, 145–147. 351"
2. Berg JM et al. 2016 Preprints for the life sciences. Science 352, 899–901. 352"
3. Colavizza G, Cadwallader L, LaFlamme M, Dozot G, Lecorney S, Rappo D, Hrynaszkiewicz I. 2024 353"
An analysis of the effects of sharing research data, code, and preprints on citations. arXiv preprint 354"
arXiv:2404.16171 355"
4. Fu DY, Hughey JJ. 2019 Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the 356"
peer-reviewed article. Elife 8, e52646. 357"
5. Desjardins-Proulx P, White EP, Adamson JJ, Ram K, Gravel TPD. 2013 The case for open preprints 358"
in biology. PLOS Biology 11, e1001563. 359"
6. Bourne PE, Polka JK, Vale RD, Kiley R. 2017 Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint 360"
submission. PLOS Computational Biology 13, e1005473. 361"
7. Vale RD. 2015 Accelerating scientific publication in biology. Proceedings of the National Academy 362"
of Sciences 112, 13439–13446. 363"
8. Ni R, Waltman L. 2024 To preprint or not to preprint: A global researcher survey. Journal of the 364"
Association for Information Science and Technology 365"
9. Klebel T, Reichmann S, Polka J, McDowell G, Penfold N, Hindle S, Ross-Hellauer T. 2020 Peer 366"
review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals. PLOS ONE 15, e0239518. 367"
10. Chiarelli A, Johnson R, Pinfield S, Richens E. 2019 Preprints and scholarly communication: An 368"
exploratory qualitative study of adoption, practices, drivers and barriers. F1000 Research 8, 971, 369"
https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.19619.2. 370"
11. Fraser N, Mayr P, Peters I. 2022 Motivations, concerns and selection biases when posting preprints: 371"
A survey of bioRxiv authors. PLOS ONE 17, e0274441. 372"
12. Guillemaud T, Facon B, Bourguet D. 2019 Peer community in: A free process for the 373"
recommendation of unpublished scientific papers based on peer review. ELectronic PUBlishing 374"
13. O’Dea RE et al. 2021 Towards open, reliable, and transparent ecology and evolutionary biology. 375"
BMC biology 19, 68. 376"
14. Haddaway NR, Bayliss HR. 2015 Shades of grey: Two forms of grey literature important for reviews 377"
in conservation. Biological Conservation 191, 827–829. 378"
15. Haddaway NR, Bethel A, Dicks LV, Koricheva J, Macura B, Petrokofsky G, Pullin AS, Savilaakso S, 379"
Stewart GB. 2020 Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them. Nature Ecology & 380"
Evolution 4, 1582–1589. 381"
16. Amano T, González-Varo JP, Sutherland WJ. 2016 Languages are still a major barrier to global 382"
science. PLOS Biology 14, e2000933. 383"
17. Amano T, Sutherland WJ. 2013 Four barriers to the global understanding of biodiversity 384"
conservation: Wealth, language, geographical location and security. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: 385"
Biological Sciences 280, 20122649. 386"
18. Amano T, Rios Rojas C, Boum II Y, Calvo M, Misra BB. 2021 Ten tips for overcoming language 387"
barriers in science. Nature Human Behaviour 5, 1119–1122. 388"
19. Amano T et al. 2023 The role of non-english-language science in informing national biodiversity 389"
assessments. Nature Sustainability 6, 845–854. 390"
20. Zenni RD, Barlow J, Pettorelli N, Stephens P, Rader R, Siqueira T, Gordon R, Pinfield T, Nuñez MA. 391"
2023 Multi-lingual literature searches are needed to unveil global knowledge. Journal of Applied Ecology 392"
21. Hannah K, Haddaway NR, Fuller RA, Amano T. 2024 Language inclusion in ecological systematic 393"
reviews and maps: Barriers and perspectives. Research Synthesis Methods 394"
22. White CR, Marshall DJ, Chown SL, Clusella-Trullas S, Portugal SJ, Franklin CE, Seebacher F. 2021 395"
Geographical bias in physiological data limits predictions of global change impacts. Functional Ecology 396"
35, 1572–1578. 397"
23. Konno K, Akasaka M, Koshida C, Katayama N, Osada N, Spake R, Amano T. 2020 Ignoring non-398"
english-language studies may bias ecological meta-analyses. Ecology and Evolution 10, 6373–6384. 399"
24. Arenas-Castro H et al. 2024 Academic publishing requires linguistically inclusive policies. 400"
Proceedings of the Royal Society B 291, 20232840. 401"
25. Sarabipour S, Debat HJ, Emmott E, Burgess SJ, Schwessinger B, Hensel Z. 2019 On the value of 402"
preprints: An early career researcher perspective. PLOS Biology 17, e3000151. 403"
26. Fox CW, Paine CT. 2019 Gender differences in peer review outcomes and manuscript impact at six 404"
journals of ecology and evolution. Ecology and Evolution 9, 3599–3619. 405"
27. Wehner MR, Li Y, Nead KT. 2020 Comparison of the proportions of female and male corresponding 406"
authors in preprint research repositories before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. JAMA network open 407"
3, e2020335–e2020335. 408"
28. Mullen L. 2021 Predict gender from names using historical data. R package version 0.6.0. 409"
29. Jahn N. 2024 Roadoi: Find free versions of scholarly publications via unpaywall. R package version 410"
0.7.2. Https://github.com/ropensci/roadoi/, https://docs.ropensci.org/roadoi/. 411"
30. Roche DG, Kruuk LE, Lanfear R, Binning SA. 2015 Public data archiving in ecology and evolution: 412"
How well are we doing? PLOS Biology 13, e1002295. 413"
31. O’Dea RE et al. 2021 Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ecology 414"
and evolutionary biology: A PRISMA extension. Biological Reviews 96, 1695–1722. 415"
32. Soeharjono S, Roche DG. 2021 Reported individual costs and benefits of sharing open data among 416"
canadian academic faculty in ecology and evolution. BioScience 71, 750–756. 417"
33. Roche DG, Lanfear R, Binning SA, Haff TM, Schwanz LE, Cain KE, Kokko H, Jennions MD, Kruuk 418"
LE. 2014 Troubleshooting public data archiving: Suggestions to increase participation. PLoS biology 12, 419"
e1001779. 420"
34. Anderson KR. 2020 bioRxiv: Trends and analysis of five years of preprints. Learned Publishing 33, 421"
104–109. 422"
35. Avissar-Whiting M et al. 2024 Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to 423"
improve the culture of science. PLOS Biology 22, e3002502. 424"
425"
