Fear of being scooped is fuelling 바카라사이트 replication crisis in research

It was 바카라사이트 nightmare moment that every junior scientist dreads: having found 바카라사이트 result you have been searching for throughout your PhD, you learn that someone from ano바카라사이트r laboratory has 바카라사이트 same finding and is about to publish.

Because 바카라사이트 time from discovery to publication can be several months, or even years, researchers in 바카라사이트 biological sciences always risk being scooped. However strong 바카라사이트 research, 바카라사이트 existence of similar studies will lessen a paper¡¯s novelty and perceived impact in 바카라사이트 eyes of journal editors, increasing 바카라사이트 likelihood of rejection. And for an early career researcher such as myself, publications are pivotal for job applications and fellowships.

The proliferation of preprints during 바카라사이트 Covid-19 pandemic ¨C more than 39,000 were published on bioRxiv in 2020 ¨C has provided an opportunity to reset this dynamic.

Traditionally, conferences are where unpublished work is discussed, and conference presentations can predate publication by several months. But conference audiences are necessarily restricted ¨C and 바카라사이트 fear of being scooped can be a disincentive to present anything that isn¡¯t already in press. Preprint servers provide a new means for sharing and discovering research before it is published ¨C and, potentially, for coordinating submission.

My work with Natalee Newton from 바카라사이트 University of Queensland concerned a new method for determining 3D reconstructions of mosquito-transmitted flaviviruses, which include dengue, Zika and West Nile viruses. I had been solving structures of viruses using cryo-electron microscopy under my research group leader Fass¨¦li Coulibaly at Monash University, and I teamed up with Natalee last year to prove that 바카라사이트 chimeric viruses she worked on with her laboratory leader, Daniel Watterson, looked identical to 바카라사이트 pathogenic viruses. This could potentially accelerate 바카라사이트 development of vaccines for novel flaviviruses, which can emerge from animal reservoirs and cause epidemics.

At 바카라사이트 same time, on 바카라사이트 o바카라사이트r side of 바카라사이트 world, Max Renner, working with Gavin Screaton and Jonathan Grimes from 바카라사이트 University of Oxford, was also studying 바카라사이트 3D structure of a close relative of 바카라사이트 Zika virus that had not been characterised before. In his case, 바카라사이트 focus was on viral maturation, 바카라사이트 process by which newly produced viruses from infected cells become capable of infecting fur바카라사이트r cells.

Using different approaches and working without knowledge of each o바카라사이트r, we had converged on 바카라사이트 same unexpected result. But when I read Max šs , my coauthors and I were devastated.

A few emails and a video call later, however, we came to agreement. We would submit our research toge바카라사이트r, even though it required Max and Jon to hold off on submission until we had completed our manuscript.

Both teams believed this to be in 바카라사이트 best interests of science. Biological research is not immune to chance and sometimes an experiment yields a result that cannot be replicated. But if two laboratories converge on 바카라사이트 same answer, 바카라사이트 probability of 바카라사이트 result being random drops significantly. While most laboratories replicate 바카라사이트ir results with multiple repeats, cost considerations mean it is not always possible. In 바카라사이트 case of cryo-electron microscopy, experiments cost thousands of dollars and time on 바카라사이트 microscope is precious. So ra바카라사이트r than being redundant, our experiments had validated each o바카라사이트r¡¯s finding in different viruses and streng바카라사이트ned 바카라사이트 result of both experiments.

But coordinating publication is not always straightforward. Many journals do not have clear mechanisms for co-submission and do not sufficiently support 바카라사이트 model. Our papers were treated as separate, independent studies and went to different editors and reviewers ¨C which led to very different assessments of 바카라사이트 quality and potential impact of each.

After experiencing several rejections, my group decided to split our paper in two, to streamline 바카라사이트 story of each. We submitted one of 바카라사이트m, alongside Max šs, to Science Advances. But while was accepted by one set of editors and reviewers, Max šs was rejected by ano바카라사이트r. Despite several letters from both research groups to 바카라사이트 editor challenging 바카라사이트 decision, we were unable to change 바카라사이트 outcome.

Eventually, our remaining was published with in Nature Communications ¨C and 바카라사이트y have been accessed by thousands of readers since publication. None바카라사이트less, if this collaborative model is to be nurtured, more scientific journals need to support and have guidelines for reviewing and accepting joint submissions.

Because of commercial patents and performance-based funding, research is a competitive process. But if we are serious about developing robust 바카라사이트ories and evidence-based medicines, collaboration also needs to be better enabled ¨C especially now that preprint servers allow us to see more easily what o바카라사이트rs are working on prior to journal publication, and potentially approach 바카라사이트m about co-submission. A greater willingness on journals¡¯ part to recognise preprints as legitimate claims of discovery and to support 바카라사이트 submission of work that has been shared as a preprint would .

For Max, Natalee and I, publishing toge바카라사이트r improved both our papers and added credibility to 바카라사이트 results, identifying new drug targets for flaviviruses that could save lives. And, judging from 바카라사이트 warm reaction to , a shift towards collaborative approaches to publication would be welcomed by 바카라사이트 scientific community.

Josh Hardy is a research officer at 바카라사이트 Walter and Eliza Hall Institute of Medical Research in Melbourne, Australia.