Thoughts on bioRxive

I have still not posted any paper I am single-senior on to bioRxive, not yet. Mainly because I still don’t know what to make of it, even though it has been the focus of more than one pub-evening. But since papers on bioRxive occurs more frequently as references in traditional papers, it it is slowly moving from something preliminary into an accepted form of data- and results-publishing, I think at least. I keep being told that it is a democratic way of publishing, anyone can publish there, and do so fast, and thus provide people with a possibility to read the article for free. Thus, the benefits are likely that it will force competing journals (although it is claimed that bioRxive should not be viewed as competition cause it is preliminary, but the element of competition with traditional journals is certainly growing stronger I think) to speed up publishing, and maybe to cut publishing and subscription costs. And it does provide some kind of Open Access. However, I am still worried that it is too often used to circumvent traditional peer-reviewing, and also as a last-minute option to scoop papers that are about to get published after a traditional long peer-review process. BioRxive is not going away anytime soon. I suspect that the coming years will show where it is heading, and eventually we may have to bring our stuff there too.

bioRxive on the rise, from Jordan Anaya