Katie Corker

Crossref as a source of open bibliographic metadata for preprints Crossref is a crucial source of open bibliographic metadata for articles published in scientific journals. Importantly, however, Crossref can also serve as a source of bibliographic metadata for prepr...

There is considerable discussion about the (lack of) openness of metadata of journal articles, but how do preprint servers perform in terms of openly available metadata?

@neesjanvaneck.bsky.social and I report our findings in a new @leidenmadtrics.bsky.social blog post doi.org/10.59350/te7....

Biophysics Colab | An equitable, inclusive and transparent alternative to traditional science publishing Biophysics Colab provides a 'Publish, Review, Curate' service for preprints describing physicochemical mechanisms underlying physiological processes.

We are delighted to see the growth of the ‘Publish, Review, Curate’ (PRC) initiatives in recent years!🚀
Today, we would like to spotlight Biophysics Colab @biophysicscolab.bsky.social, an international organization working to improve how original research is evaluated in biophysics
buff.ly/jg42kfk

Crossref as a source of open bibliographic metadata for preprints Crossref is a crucial source of open bibliographic metadata for articles published in scientific journals. Importantly, however, Crossref can also serve as a source of bibliographic metadata for prepr...

@crossref.bsky.social is a crucial source of open bibliographic metadata for articles published in scientific journals, but how complete is its metadata on preprints?

In our latest blog post, @neesjanvaneck.bsky.social and @ludowaltman.bsky.social investigate

👇 Read it now on Leiden Madtrics

This is one reason why we need open review. If a paper doesn't have open reviews, what can we say about how well it was vetted? This is currently done by relying on journal prestige. That seems silly.

Never mind that my colleagues are reading and citing the document on PsyArXiv. For this manuscript to count as a legitimate scientific product I must first endure inexplicable delays; arbitrary formatting requirements (the formatting manual costs $47.99); conflicts between my scholarly values and the astronomical profits that private publishing companies make from our taxpayer funded work; introduction of errors into my manuscript by the journal’s proofreaders; websites from hell; and of course peer review. Without that process of publication, my work will remain a ‘preprint’—an incomplete and unreliable artifact unworthy of a place in the scientific literature. Could things be better? I surmise that, like fish unaware of their wet surrounds, academics don’t feel the pain because it’s all they’ve ever known. For one, peer review has nothing to do with commercial journals or publishers—it’s the voluntary labor of our colleagues in service of scientific progress. We could, right now, be reviewing each others work on PREreview or Review Commons. Alas, instead of these scholarly debates we are complacent with pretending that a 40% profit margin industry is somehow facilitating the peer-review process better than the transparent platforms already available to us, for free.

I argue that the time is right for widespread adoption of open review platforms like PREreview (prereview.org) and Review Commons (www.reviewcommons.org) and reject the arbitrary administrative overhead imposed on us by the publication industry.

Against Publishing: universonline.nl/nieuws/2025/...

Preprints are read, shared, and cited, yet still dismissed as incomplete until blessed by a publisher. I argue that the true measure of scholarship lies in open exchange, not in the industry’s gatekeeping of what counts as published.

Is there a checkR?

I like the empirical work done by the authors, but I disagree with the interpretation they give to their findings.

@prereview.bsky.social

#PublishYourReviews

Most influential papers are published in lower-impact factor journals

I just reviewed the article 'Analysis of citation dynamics reveals that you do not receive enough recognition for your influential science' by Salsabil Arabi, Chaoqun Ni and @bihutchins.bsky.social.

Article: www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...

Review: prereview.org/reviews/1733...

My brain read the sign as both "weird al gal" and "weird AI" lol!

Lab’s 1st preprint!

Menstruation is understudied due to societal taboos + a biological challenge: mice (a key system for research + drug discovery) don’t menstruate.

@cagricevrim.bsky.social made menstruating mice + used them to discover early events in menstruation.

He is on the job market!

New preprint from member of FORRT - How to Develop and Use Open Educational Resources 📣

In this chapter, we position Open Educational Resources (OERs) as not only cost-saving tools but as instruments of epistemic justice and inclusion.

📃 osf.io/preprints/ed...

🧵👇

PKP is hiring a Managing Director - Public Knowledge Project The Public Knowledge Project, a Core Research Facility of SFU, invites applications for the position of Managing Director

Reminder to spread the word about exciting OPPORTUNITY as PKP's Managing Director! It's a very exciting time at @pkp.sfu.ca. So much going on! A true scholar-led open infrastructure project, supporting 55,000+ journals. Read more: pkp.sfu.ca/2025/09/17/h... #scholcomm #openaccess #openscience

Check out Richard's take on this as well - thoughtful as ever! bsky.app/profile/rich...

HHMI Enacts “Immediate Access To Research” Policy For Its Scientists – ASAPbio The Howard Hughes Medical Institute (HHMI) is requiring its scientists to post their research articles as preprints under an open license that allows

It is *so* exciting to see HHMI's new preprint policy. HHMI researchers are now required to post initial and revised preprints under CC-BY licenses. Best of all - the policy lets HHMI put preprints at the center of its research assessment strategy. Learn more:

asapbio.org/hhmi-enacts-...

The dialog box of the Kindle PDF Annotator

Tired of Kindle annotations living in separate files?

Built Kindle PDF Annotator to embed your highlights & notes directly back into PDFs.

Finally share annotated PDFs with colleagues and integrate with Zotero again.

Open source: https://github.com/milekpl/kindle-pdf-annotator #python #kindle

Interested in testing our scientific rigor training materials? Email us at carogar@seas.upenn.edu

We have three units in beta, ready for testing, and they come in 3 versions: for individuals, small group meetings, and class lecture.

Join us and learn more at C4R.io/join

Publish, Review, Curate: Turning scholarly publishing on its head – COAR https://coar-repositories.org/news-updates/publish-review-curate-turning-scholarly-publishing-on-its-head/

I know people are submitting AI-generated papers and some are AI-assisted, but…

There were 26,646 new submissions to arXiv in September 2025.

An image of three guidebooks in Portuguese to conduct ethical peer review, with the PREreview logo at the top on a background in white, and the guide titles at the bottom with white and black text on a red background.

Did you know that our Open Reviewers Toolkit is now available in Portuguese (also in English and Spanish)?

You can find these guides and more on our Resources page: prereview.org/resources

Let us know your preference for what languages we should prioritize next here: forms.gle/KwL51vinhYCN...

Super exciting work, and a bonus to see a major university research department promote an exciting @biorxivpreprint.bsky.social preprint rather than wait 9-12 months for the final version 👏🏽

@asapbio.bsky.social

This includes the OSF preprint servers, @metaarxivbot.bsky.social, @socarxivbot.bsky.social, @psyarxivbot.bsky.social, and more.

Another record month for bioRxiv - and further evidence the pandemic spike+dip was just that and growth continues. Thanks to all involved and that includes 🫵

Our latest ‘call for preLighters’ closes tonight!

Interested, but didn’t find the time to write an application? Expressions of interest are also welcome – just email us at prelights@biologists.com

Why join? See what other preLighters have to say…⬇️👀

Don't let minor submission errors delay the publication of your research! 📝 🔬

Remember to check the full guidelines when submitting the manuscript to PsyArXiv (buff.ly/M3cRBW2).

Below, we also have a few friendly reminders!

One week until our virtual panel on how the open science and media communities can adapt to changes in our information ecosystem to (re)build trust in research. I hope it'll be the start of a much-needed longer conversation.

Don't miss it! Register here: shorensteincenter.org/new-event/ca...

Great news-- @felixthoemmes.bsky.social to be the next EiC at AMPPS! See below for information about joining his team.

PREreview platform news, 26 September 2025 We are back! After a brief summer break, it’s time for another weeknote from PREreview.org!

Our dataset review workflow is now ready for testing 🎉
Try it out at sandbox.prereview.org! So far, this supports datasets from @datadryad.bsky.social
We’ll be supporting more repositories as we go. Email help@prereview.org with your suggestions.

Read more: content.prereview.org/prereview-pl...

There was a ScholCommLab paper last year that did a look at how preprint servers approach this problem currently that I found informative. I also expect this is an area where changes/maturation will be coming soon (given problems with AI slop that seem to be growing).

1/ Starting next year, @hhmi.org will require all authors to share their research as preprints under a CC BY 4.0 license as part of its new Immediate Access to Research policy.
buff.ly/NrHlEKD