first_imgYet bioRxiv.org, launched in 2013 with backing from Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, has grown considerably in popularity and many of its fans took to Twitter to question the purpose of the proposed Central Service. The Central Service is meant to be an aggregator from the different preprint sites that have arisen over the past few years. For example, some biology preprints get submitted to arXiv.org, the long-established site that caters more to the physical sciences, whereas others go to sites such as PeerJ. And ASAPbio notes that many prominent publishers are considering their own preprint sites. “Preprint entities in biology are more likely to expand rather than collapse into one source,” it concludes in a blog post about the potential benefits of an aggregator such as the Central Service. we should just put our resources behind @biorxivpreprint and hit the ground running https://t.co/RIWVfivzNo— Alexander Arguello (@NeuroMinded) February 13, 2017 There is no need to reinvent wheel. BioRxiv exists…and *fully* and *completely* meets needs of field. @pathogenomenick @NatureNews— Richard H. Ebright (@R_H_Ebright) February 13, 2017 A plan to create a new repository for biomedical and biology preprints has earned the endorsement of nearly a dozen major science funders, including government agencies, major foundations, and research charities. But it also has sparked a debate about whether an existing preprint repository, bioRxiv.org, should be the natural home for such material.Although it has no confirmed funding for the effort, the nonprofit group ASAPbio today announced a request for applications to build what it calls a “Central Service” for preprints (papers that have not yet been accepted by a journal or undergone peer review).  Together with the U.S. National Institutes of Health, the European Research Council, the United Kingdom’s Medical Research Council, the Howard Hughes Medical Institute and Wellcome Trust research charities, and other science funders, ASAPbio released a consensus set of principles and requirements for the proposed repository. For example, the repository must have a scientist-led independent governing board, the groups say, and be free for those submitting and reading preprints. Totally agree. Not sure why we’re discussing the creation of a central preprint repository when we already have one. https://t.co/o9GLdrKIfb— Daniel MacArthur (@dgmacarthur) February 13, 2017 Sergei25/shutterstock Publishing their papers in journals, such as these lining a library’s shelves, is still the goal of most biologists, but more and more are depositing early versions, or preprints, in online repositories. Email Click to view the privacy policy. Required fields are indicated by an asterisk (*) Sign up for our daily newsletter Get more great content like this delivered right to you! Country Jessica Polka, director of ASAPbio in Cambridge, Massachusetts, says that last suggestion could ultimately be the decision if bioRxiv’s founders respond to the call for applications. “bioRxiv is providing a great service to the scientific community,” she wrote in an email to ScienceInsider. “bioRxiv could either respond individually or as part of a consortium to potentially become the central service.”One goal of the new repository is to have preprints in a more easily read, and searchable, format than the typical PDF submitted to bioRxiv.org and its competitors. Polka envisions creating a software program that would convert standard word-processing program files into more computer-friendly online content. That’s a laudable plan, if a recent twitter survey is any indication. Two-thirds of the 266 respondents said they wanted bioRxiv.org preprints in a non-PDF format more easily readable on a phone. Debate erupts over plan to create another online destination for biology preprints By John TravisFeb. 13, 2017 , 4:45 PM No need for this: we have bioRxiv. Discovery is easy. It’s on bioRxiv. https://t.co/70e2OJMMZD— Nick Loman (@pathogenomenick) February 13, 2017 Country * Afghanistan Aland Islands Albania Algeria Andorra Angola Anguilla Antarctica Antigua and Barbuda Argentina Armenia Aruba Australia Austria Azerbaijan Bahamas Bahrain Bangladesh Barbados Belarus Belgium Belize Benin Bermuda Bhutan Bolivia, Plurinational State of Bonaire, Sint Eustatius and Saba Bosnia and Herzegovina Botswana Bouvet Island Brazil British Indian Ocean Territory Brunei Darussalam Bulgaria Burkina Faso Burundi Cambodia Cameroon Canada Cape Verde Cayman Islands Central African Republic Chad Chile China Christmas Island Cocos (Keeling) Islands Colombia Comoros Congo Congo, the Democratic Republic of the Cook Islands Costa Rica Cote d’Ivoire Croatia Cuba Curaçao Cyprus Czech Republic Denmark Djibouti Dominica Dominican Republic Ecuador Egypt El Salvador Equatorial Guinea Eritrea Estonia Ethiopia Falkland Islands (Malvinas) Faroe Islands Fiji Finland France French Guiana French Polynesia French Southern Territories Gabon Gambia Georgia Germany Ghana Gibraltar Greece Greenland Grenada Guadeloupe Guatemala Guernsey Guinea Guinea-Bissau Guyana Haiti Heard Island and McDonald Islands Holy See (Vatican City State) Honduras Hungary Iceland India Indonesia Iran, Islamic Republic of Iraq Ireland Isle of Man Israel Italy Jamaica Japan Jersey Jordan Kazakhstan Kenya Kiribati Korea, Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, Republic of Kuwait Kyrgyzstan Lao People’s Democratic Republic Latvia Lebanon Lesotho Liberia Libyan Arab Jamahiriya Liechtenstein Lithuania Luxembourg Macao Macedonia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Madagascar Malawi Malaysia Maldives Mali Malta Martinique Mauritania Mauritius Mayotte Mexico Moldova, Republic of Monaco Mongolia Montenegro Montserrat Morocco Mozambique Myanmar Namibia Nauru Nepal Netherlands New Caledonia New Zealand Nicaragua Niger Nigeria Niue Norfolk Island Norway Oman Pakistan Palestine Panama Papua New Guinea Paraguay Peru Philippines Pitcairn Poland Portugal Qatar Reunion Romania Russian Federation Rwanda Saint Barthélemy Saint Helena, Ascension and Tristan da Cunha Saint Kitts and Nevis Saint Lucia Saint Martin (French part) Saint Pierre and Miquelon Saint Vincent and the Grenadines Samoa San Marino Sao Tome and Principe Saudi Arabia Senegal Serbia Seychelles Sierra Leone Singapore Sint Maarten (Dutch part) Slovakia Slovenia Solomon Islands Somalia South Africa South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands South Sudan Spain Sri Lanka Sudan Suriname Svalbard and Jan Mayen Swaziland Sweden Switzerland Syrian Arab Republic Taiwan Tajikistan Tanzania, United Republic of Thailand Timor-Leste Togo Tokelau Tonga Trinidad and Tobago Tunisia Turkey Turkmenistan Turks and Caicos Islands Tuvalu Uganda Ukraine United Arab Emirates United Kingdom United States Uruguay Uzbekistan Vanuatu Venezuela, Bolivarian Republic of Vietnam Virgin Islands, British Wallis and Futuna Western Sahara Yemen Zambia Zimbabwe Do you want BioRxiv articles to be available in formats beside PDF (eg HTML) to make them readable on a phone?— Torsten Seemann (@torstenseemann) February 12, 2017last_img

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *