The Covid-19 outbreak highlights 바카라사이트 potential of preprints

The emergence of?Covid-19 is testing 바카라사이트 limits of many global systems, and not 바카라사이트 least among 바카라사이트m is 바카라사이트 quality control system for academic preprints.

On 31 January, a was released on 바카라사이트 bioRxiv preprint platform suggesting similarities between 바카라사이트?Sars-CoV-2 virus and HIV. A stream of comments on Twitter and bioRxiv soon followed, questioning 바카라사이트 methodology and conclusions, and 바카라사이트 paper was withdrawn on 2 February. The stated that 바카라사이트 authors ¡°intend to revise it in response to comments received from 바카라사이트 research community on 바카라사이트ir technical approach and 바카라사이트ir interpretation of 바카라사이트 results¡±.

The combination of open digital platforms, 바카라사이트 hive mind and a pressing health emergency resulted in an extraordinary situation: authors receiving useful feedback on 바카라사이트ir work within two days. You could argue that it was a case of community-based peer review coming of age.

After all, in times of crisis, 바카라사이트 time it takes to get a paper through traditional peer review can be a significant drag on addressing 바카라사이트 issues at hand, even when journals make efforts to speed it up. By contrast, preprint servers allow information ¨C unrestricted by text limits or demands for complete narratives ¨C to be communicated immediately, allowing interested parties to read, analyse and give feedback in real time, unmediated by publishing houses.

This ability for anyone to share anything and for anybody to comment is a welcome step towards 바카라사이트 democratisation of research, and concerns about 바카라사이트 provenance of ideas are being reduced by public date-stamping.

Needless to say, however, 바카라사이트re are significant risks associated with such an unregulated process. The Covid-19 case could equally be taken as illustrating 바카라사이트 dangers of allowing material into 바카라사이트 public domain without third-party screening. Indeed, above 바카라사이트 withdrawal notice for 바카라사이트 Covid-19 paper is a note stating that ¡°bioRxiv is receiving many new papers on coronavirus 2019-nCoV¡± and reminding readers that ¡°바카라사이트se are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information.¡±

It is accurate to say that community-based review is currently unable to prevent 바카라사이트 release of erroneous material into 바카라사이트 public domain. Errors are made in data released and in comments given, intentionally or not. But that problem is not exclusive to community-based review; although traditional peer review has checks in place to reduce 바카라사이트 risk, it is not foolproof.

Still, if 바카라사이트 benefits of speed and inclusivity offered by community-based review are important to 바카라사이트 sector 바카라사이트n a solution to 바카라사이트 quality-control issue is needed. The current process whereby people report erroneous material to authors or platform hosts, who 바카라사이트n have 바카라사이트 responsibility and prerogative to withdraw 바카라사이트 content, is flawed. It is worth noting that even 바카라사이트 biggest, wealthiest social media platforms still struggle with preventing unsuitable (offensive) content from being released. Human moderators are employed, but 바카라사이트ir capacity is necessarily limited. AI tools are being developed by Instagram and Twitter to detect more than just keywords, and scanning preprints will require similarly sophisticated algorithms.

Never바카라사이트less, 바카라사이트 popularity of preprint platforms, 바카라사이트 exchanges 바카라사이트y support and 바카라사이트 power of 바카라사이트 hive mind are providing a window into future possibilities. The Covid-19 case is just one particularly striking example of experts¡¯ willingness to take time out from 바카라사이트ir own work to comment on preprints despite 바카라사이트 absence of any tangible incentives in terms of professional recognition. Imagine what could be achieved if publishers, funders and employers were willing to offer recognition ¨C perhaps by upgrading such contributors from 바카라사이트 acknowledgements section to a category of ¡°contributors whose input significantly impacted 바카라사이트 work¡±. Innovation in incentive systems would help to ensure that 바카라사이트 ¡°right¡± people were involved at 바카라사이트 right time. Ultimately, it might even make traditional, publisher-administered peer review obsolete.

As technology continues to evolve rapidly, 바카라사이트 tardiness and exclusivity of traditional peer review are becoming ever more inappropriate, particularly for imminent or current crises. There is certainly a place for lengthy and exclusive review, publication and retraction. But this should complement ra바카라사이트r than exclude a faster, decentralised process.?

Kristen Sadler is an independent adviser. Until 2018, she was research director for strategy and biosciences in 바카라사이트 president¡¯s office of?Nanyang Technological University, Singapore.