P 3.1

Fast communication: preprints, peer-review, continuous publishing

2018.09.26 — 14:00-15:30


Free and open access, transparent assessment and dissemination of research in a fast, shared, collaborative, participative and clear manner for all of society are some of the principles of Open Science. The recognition and adoption of open research practices is growing, including new policies that increase public access to scholarly literature and encourage openness of codes and data sharing for its reproduction. Among these initiatives which are reconfiguring scientific communication, preprints have been consolidating themselves as a promising space for free, open and transparent knowledge, streamlining the editorial process. Preprints are the first formal step in making the manuscripts publicly available before being approved by a journal.

The logics of publishing based on science guiding principles have always been in the decision-making power of the editor. From the choice of referees to the distribution of articles approved in publishing editions, the time management to publish keeping quality, periodicity and celerity regarding feedback on the output was always a challenge to editors. Moreover, this time management becomes an even greater challenge to the publishing process in Brazil, and in some parts of Latin America, whose journals’ management is mainly based on voluntary work. Given this scenario, initiatives that seek to make scientific communication faster and more transparent appear as solutions to the daily difficulties of scientific publishing, such as, for instance, preprints, continuous publication and open peer review.

In view of this new reconfiguration of the editorial process, this panel aims to discuss the panorama of fast and transparent scientific communication, seeking to share experiences that have been developed that respond to the editorial demands on the management of time and quality of the papers published in scientific journals and, particularly, to support the development of the SciELO Program preprints policy.


The challenges of scientific publishing and editorial ethics regarding time management and quality; initiatives for fast research communication; metrics and alternative indicators of scientific visibility; preprints and continuous communication experience in the national and international scenario; editorial dynamics of preprints and its models in the market; the demands of the continuous publication flow; open modalities of peer review: peer-review, open peer-review, and crowd-based peer review; the spaces of fast communication in scholarly social platforms.

How to contribute

You are invited to participate and cooperate with the SciELO 20 Years celebration with comments, testimonies, blog posts, articles, etc, related to the topic of this or other panels.


In development.


CHAWLA, D. S. Do publishers add value? Maybe little, suggests preprint study of preprints. Retraction Watch [online]. 24 june 2016 [viewed 10 July 2018]. Available from:https://retractionwatch.com/2016/06/24/do-publishers-add-value-maybe-little-suggests-preprint-study-of-preprints/

CURRY, S. Peer review, preprints and the speed of science. The Guardian [online]. ©2015. Updated 9 may 2017 [viewed 10 July 2018]. Available from: https://www.theguardian.com/science/occams-corner/2015/sep/07/peer-review-preprints-speed-science-journals

MUELLER, A. The Case for Open Review. Inside Higher Ed [online]. 16 may 2017 [viewed 10 July 2018]. Available from: https://www.insidehighered.com/views/2016/05/16/open-peer-review-journal-articles-offers-significant-benefits-essay

NASSI-CALÒ, L. Peer-review as a research topic in its own right. SciELO in Perspective [online]. 2015 [viewed 10 July 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/04/24/peer-review-as-a-research-topic-in-its-own-right/

TENNANT, J., et al. The evolving preprint landscape: Introductory report for the Knowledge Exchange working group on preprints. BITSS Preprints [preprint]. May 21, 2018. Available from: doi: 10.17605/OSF.IO/796TU.

VELTEROP, J. Science (which needs communication) first, careers (which need selectivity) later. SciELO in Perspective [online]. 2015 [viewed 10 July 2018]. Available from:https://blog.scielo.org/en/2015/10/29/science-which-needs-communication-first-careers-which-need-selectivity-later/


In development.


OLIVEIRA, T. How long does it take to do science? The emergence of time in scholarly communication [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2018 [viewed 06 July 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2018/07/06/how-long-does-it-take-to-do-science-the-emergence-of-time-in-scholarly-communication/

VELTEROP, J. Communication and peer review should be universally separated [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2018 [viewed 25 May 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2018/05/25/communication-and-peer-review-should-be-universally-separated/

VELTEROP, J. What does a new approach mean (for journals, research councils)? [online]. SciELO in Perspective, 2018 [viewed 19 July 2018]. Available from: https://blog.scielo.org/en/2018/07/19/what-does-a-new-approach-mean-for-journals-research-councils/


In development.


In development.

powered by Odyno gGroupslogo

Group Coordinator

Executive Secretary

Group of Collaborators