Preprints in Life Sciences: Boundary Objects, Cooperation and Standardization

Authors

Keywords:

preprint, life sciences, bioRxiv, boundary object, communities of practice

Abstract

The aim of this article is to provide an analysis of the evolution of preprints, specifically in the area of life sciences, from the perspective of Susan Leigh Star on boundary objects. The notion of boundary object allows us to analyze the emergence process of preprints and their stabilization, from the development of bioRxiv repository, as a dynamic of continuous and cooperative work conducted by a range of heterogeneous communities of practice. In this regard, we analyze preprints in the dynamic of tensions and fluctuations that take place within these communities in order to infuse preprints with a common identity to all practices and, at the same time, to appropriate them according to their particular necessities.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

María de los Ángeles Martini, Universidad Nacional de Moreno

Docente investigadora de la Facultad de Humanidades y Ciencias Sociales, Universidad Nacional de Moreno, Argentina.

Carla Valeria Filippi, Universidad Nacional de Moreno

Docente investigadora del Programa Académico para la Investigación e Innovación en Biotecnología, Universidad Nacional de Moreno.

References

Abadal, E. (2021). Ciencia abierta: un modelo con piezas por encajar. Arbor, 197(799), a588. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2021.799003.

Abdill, R. J. y Blekhman, R. (2019). Meta-Research: Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints. Elife, 8, e45133, 1-21. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.45133.001.

Albritton, E. C. (1965a). The Information Exchange Group –an experiment in communication. Presented before the Institute of Advances in Biomedical Communication, American University and George Washington University. Recuperado de: https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:py379dm4170/py379dm4170.pdf.

Albritton, E. C. (1965b). Purposes and Conditions of Membership”. Recuperado de:

https://stacks.stanford.edu/file/druid:yg067bc9065/yg067bc9065.pdf.

Bernal, J. D., Chadwick, D., Holmstrom, J. E. y Fox, H. M. (1948). The Royal Society Scientific Information Conference. Nature, 162(4112), 279–286. Recuperado de: https://europepmc.org/backend/ptpmcrender.fcgi?accid=PMC194801yblobtype=pdf.

Bernal, J.D. (1960). Scientific information and its users. Aslib Proceedings, 12(12), 432-438.

Bowker, G. C. y Star, S. L. (1999). Sorting Things Out: Classification and its Consequences. Cambridge: MIT Press.

Cash, D. W. y Belloy, P. G. (2020). Salience, Credibility and Legitimacy in a Rapidly Shifting World of Knowledge and Action. Sustainability, 12(7376), 1-15. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/su12187376.

Cash, D. W., Clark, W. C., Alcock, F., Dickson, N. M., Eckley, N., Guston, D. H. y Mitchell, R. B. (2002). Knowledge systems for sustainable development. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 100(14), 8086–8091. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1231332100.

Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (2020). Science Funding. Recuperado de: https://chanzuckerberg.com/science/science-funding/.

Chiarelli, A., Johnson, R., Richens, E. y Pinfield, S. (2019). Accelerating scholarly communication: the transformative role of preprints. Recuperado de: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/336007743_Accelerating_scholarly_communi cation_The_transformative_role_of_preprints.

coAlition S (2019). Plan S: Principles and implementation. Recuperado de: https://www.coalition-s.org/principles-and-implementation/.

Cobb, M. (2017). The prehistory of biology preprints: A forgotten experiment from the 1960s. PLoS Biology, 15(11), e2003995, 1-12. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2003995.

Da Silva, J. A. T. y Dobránszki, J. (2019). Preprint policies among 14 academic publishers. The Journal of Academic Librarianship, 45(2), 162-170. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compbiomed.2016.09.008.

Dabat, H. y Baldini, D. (2020). Plan S en América Latina: una nota de precaución. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad —CTS, 15(44), 279-292. Recuperado de: http://ojs.revistacts.net/index.php/CTS/article/view/167.

Deignan, S. L. (1951). The Medical Sciences Information Exchange of the National Research Council. Science, 113(2942), 584–585. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.113.2942.584.

Deignan, S. L. y Miller, E. (1952). The Support of Research in Medical and Allied Fields for the Period 1946 through 1951. Science, 115(2987), 321–343. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.115.2987.321.

Delamothe, T., Smith, R., Keller, M., Sack, J. y Witscher, B. (1999). Netprints: the next phase in the evolution of biomedical publishing,

British Medical Journal. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.319.7224.1515.

Desjardins-Proulx, P., White, E., Adamsom, J., Ram, K., Poisot, T. y Gravel, D. (2013). The case for open preprints in biology. PLoS Biology, 11(5), e1001563. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.1001563.

Dray, S. (1966). Information Exchange Group N° 5. Science, 153, 694-695.

Dye, C., Bartolomeos, K., Moorthy, V. y Kienyc, M. P. (2016). Data sharing in public health emergencies: a call to researchers. Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 94,158. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.2471/BLT.16.170860.

Eisen, M. B., Akhmanova, A., Behrens, T. E., Harper, D. M., Weigel, D. y Zaidi, M. (2020). Peer Review: Implementing a "publish, then review" model of publishing. Elife, 9, e64910, 1-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.64910.

European Commission. (2016). Open Innovation, Open Science, Open to the World: A Vision for Europe. Recuperado de: https://ec.europa.eu/digital-single-market/en/news/open-innovation-open-science-open-world-vision-europe.

Fraser, N., Brierley, L., Dey, G., Polka, J. K., Pálfy, M., Nanni, F. y Coates, J. A. (2021). The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape. PLoS biology, 19(4), e3000959. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959.

Fressoli, M. y De Filippo, D. (2021). Nuevos escenarios y desafíos para la ciencia abierta. Entre el optimismo y la incertidumbre. Arbor, 197(799), a586. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3989/arbor.2021.79900.

Funk, K. (2020). Emerging research now available through New NIH Preprint Pilot. National Institutes of Health. Recuperado de: https://nexus.od.nih.gov/all/2020/06/09/emerging-research-now-available-through-new-nih-preprint-pilot/.

Funtowicz, S. y Ravetz, J. R. (2000). La ciencia posnormal. Ciencia con la gente. Barcelona: Icaria y Antrazyt.

Gentil-Beccot, A., Mele, S. y Brooks, T. (2009). Citing and Reading Behaviours in High-Energy Physics. How a Community Stopped Worrying about Journals and Learned to Love Repositories. arXiv preprint arXiv:0906.5418, 1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/ 10.1007/s11192-009-0111-1.

Ginsparg, Paul (1994) First Steps Towards Electronic Research Communication. Computers in Physics 8(4), 390–96. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1063/1.4823313.

Ginsparg, P. (2011). ArXiv at 20. Nature, 476(7359), 145-147. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/476145a.

Heimstädt, M. (2020). Between fast science and fake news: Preprint servers are political. Blog. The London School of Economics and Political Science. Recuperado de: https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/04/03/between-fast-science-and-fake-news-preprint-servers-are-political/.

International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (2020). Recuperado de: http://www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/publishing-and-editorial-issues/overlapping-publications.html.

Klein, M., Broadwell, P., Farb, S. E. y Grappone, T. (2019). Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions. International Journal on Digital Libraries, 20(4), 335-350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00799-018-0234-1.

Knuuttila, T. (2005). Models, Representation, and Mediation. Philosophy of Science, 72(5),1260-1271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1086/508124.

Knuuttila, T. (2011). Modelling and representing: An artefactual approach to model-based representation. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A, 42(2), 262-271. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.shpsa.2010.11.034.

Knuuttila, T. y Merz, M. (2009). Understanding by Modeling: An Objectual Approach. En H. de Regt, S. Leonelli y K. Eigner (Eds.), Scientific Understanding: Philosophical Perspectives (146-168). Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

McConnell, J. Y Horton, R. (1999). Lancet electronic research archive in international health and eprint server”. Lancet, 354(9172), 2-3. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(99)00226-3.

McNinch, J. H. (1948). The Royal Society Scientific Information Conference. Bulletin of the Medical Library Association, 37(2), 136–141. Recuperado de: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC194801/.

Moore, S. A. (2021). Open Access, Plan S and ‘Radically Liberatory’ Forms of Academic Freedom. Development and Change. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/dech.12640.

Muddiman, D. (2003). Red information scientist: the information career of J.D. Bernal, Journal of Documentation, 59(4), 387–409. DOI: 10.1108/00220410310485677.

National Institutes of Health. (2017). Reporting Preprints and Other Interim Research Products. Recuperado de: https://grants.nih.gov/grants/guide/notice-files/NOT-OD-17-050.html.

Neylon, C., Pattinson, D., Bilder, G. y Lin, J. (2017). On the origin of nonequivalent states: How we can talk about preprints. F1000Research, 6(608), 1-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.11408.1.

Penfold, N. C. y Polka, J. K. (2020). Technical and social issues influencing the adoption of preprints in the life sciences. PLoS Genetics, 16(4), e1008565. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1008565.

Sala, H. E. y Núñez Pölcher, P. (2014). Software Libre y Acceso Abierto: dos formas de transferencia de tecnología. Revista Iberoamericana de Ciencia, Tecnología y Sociedad —CTS, 9(26), 115-128. Recuperado de: https://www.redalyc.org/pdf/924/92430866006.pdf.

Sarabipour, S., Debat, H. J., Emmott, E., Burgess, S. J., Schwessinger, B. y Hensel, Z. (2019). On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective, PloS Biology, 17(2), e3000151. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151.

Sever, R., Eisen, M. y Inglis, J. (2019). Plan U: Universal access to scientific and medical research via funder preprint mandates. PLoS Biology, 17(6). DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000273.

Sherpa Romeo. (2020). Recuperado de: https://v2.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/about.html.

Soderberg, C. K., Errington, T. M., y Nosek, B. A. (2020). Credibility of Preprints: An interdisciplinary Survey of Researchers. Royal Society Open Science, 7(201520), 1-17. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201520.

Star, S. L. (1989). The Structure of Ill-Structured solutions: Boundary Objects and Heterogeneous Distributed Problem Solving. En A. H. Bond y L. Gasser (Eds.), Readings in Distributed Artificial Intelligence (37-54). San Mateo, California: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc.

Star, S. L. (1991). Power, Technologies, and the Phenomenology of Standards: on Being Allergic to Onions. En J. Law (Ed.), A Sociology of Monsters? Power, Technology, and the Modern World, Sociological Review Monograph, 38 (27-57). Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

Star, S. L. (2010). This is Not a Boundary Object: Reflections on the Origin of a Concept. Science, Technology, y Human Values, 35(5), 601-617. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.201520.

Star, S. L. y Bowker, G. (2007). Enacting silence: Residual categories as a challenge for ethics, information systems, and communication. Ethics and Information Technology, 9, 273-280. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10676-007-9141-7.

Star, S. L. y Griesemer, J. R. (1989). Institutional Ecology, 'Translations' and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley's Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science, 19(3), 387-420. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/030631289019003001.

Till, J. E. (2001). Predecessors of preprint servers. Learned Publishing, 14(1), 7-13. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1087/09531510125100214.

Throp, H. H. (2020). Persuasive words are not enough. Science, 368(6498), 1405. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abd4085.

Varmus, H. (1999). E-BIOMED: A Proposal for Electronic Publications in the Biomedical Sciences. National Institutes of Health. Archive.org. Recuperado de: https://profiles.nlm.nih.gov/101584926X356.

Vlasschaert, C., Topf, J., y Hiremath, S. (2020). Proliferation of papers and preprints during the COVID-19 pandemic: Progress or problems with peer review? Advances in Chronic Kidney Disease. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1053/j.ackd.2020.08.003.

Wykle, S. C. (2014). Enclaves of anarchy: Preprint sharing, 1940-1990. Proceedings of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 51, 1-10. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/MEET.2014.14505101036.

Downloads

Published

2022-03-23

How to Cite

Martini, M. de los Ángeles, & Filippi, C. V. (2022). Preprints in Life Sciences: Boundary Objects, Cooperation and Standardization. Revista Iberoamericana De Ciencia, Tecnología Y Sociedad - CTS (Ibero-American Science, Technology and Society Journal), 17(49). Retrieved from https://ojs.revistacts.net/index.php/CTS/article/view/262

Issue

Vol. 17 No. 49 (2022)

Section

Articles

License

All CTS's issues and academic articles are under a CC-BY license.

Since 2007, CTS has provided open and free access to all its contents, including the complete archive of its quarterly edition and the different products presented in its electronic platform. This decision is based on the belief that offering free access to published materials helps to build a greater and better exchange of knowledge.

In turn, for the quarterly edition, CTS allows institutional and thematic repositories, as well as personal web pages, to self-archive articles in their post-print or editorial version, immediately after  the publication of the final version of each issue and under the condition that a link to the original source will be incorporated into the self-archive.