Posting studies to preprint servers like bioRxiv is common practice in many scientific fields.Credit: Michael Szebor/Nature The central conclusions of biomedical preprints rarely change after peer review in a journal.1according to a study published on the preprint server bioRxiv this month. The research also found that studies that first appeared as preprints are retracted at
Some researchers who use the LaTeX markup language for typesetting unknowingly make private information public.Credit: Tom Houghton/Nature Nearly all of the nearly three million articles available on the arXiv preprint server contain details that the authors never wanted to share, according to a new study. The study, uploaded to arXiv in April and presented at
Paying reviewers led to faster first editorial decisions and higher quality reviews in a trial in the journal open biology.Credit: Phimwilai Kitsuriya/Getty Science depends on peer review, but the process can be delayed. To solve this problem, in July 2024, the magazine open biology He tried something unconventional: paying his reviewers. In the six-month experiment,
Machines are increasingly used to edit written results.Credit: Getty A new “humanizing” academic tool aims to personalize the tone of research papers written with an artificial intelligence program, in part by erasing apparent signs of AI use. Some researchers praise the tool, but others express concern. The tool, launched on June 20, is designed for
If you create a data set and no one can find it, is it useful? Not as much as it could be. With trust in science under siege from partisan actors and impartial pathogens, the accessibility and transparency of (and trust in) scientific information must be improved. Have people stopped trusting science? The data tells