See our advocacy recommendations from the report

We firmly support this and have been saying for a number of years now that all STEM undergraduates should have a module on publishing, history of science and metascience.

The data that currently exists on the PRC model is not supportive generally. Moreover, this “alliance” represents a clear threat to standalone preprints and is a worrying development that will fracture the preprint space; an effort driven by publishers - not researchers. It’s also worth highlighting that some of these organisations are not adhering to open science principles themselves, causing this alliance to begin with a lack of authenticity or integrity. Additionally, this entire movement rests on peer review being a good QC step - something that decades of evidence shows to be false; peer review is categorically not good at quality control and PRC efforts do not improve this aspect of peer review.

It’s always good to read Bjorns writings

Not good news, but not surprising either

An update to the 2019 preprint. One of the more interesting new findings was that 42% of authors post their preprints prior to journal submission whereas 37% post concurrently with journal submission. The best time to post a preprint is ~1 month prior to submitting to a journal, according to our data.

Really we need to move beyond peer review.

Publishers finding new ways to financially benefit from researchers effort is never a positive development

This is a great look into author views on qed - I keep calling for new initiatives to be evidence based or generate evidence so it’s fantastic to see this happening here.