For the past year, bioRxiv and medRxiv authors have been able to include funder information with their preprints. This can be entered in a dedicated field during the submission process, using Research...

Journal brand and peer review are poor proxies for trustworthiness. Here’s how we can design trust signals that work.

Over the last year, conversations about trust signals have increased. However, there remain many outstanding questions, various levels of implementation or experiments, and a lack of clarity on the purpose of such signals. Historically, the credibility of a research article is judged through the presence of peer review and weak proxies linked to publication venue (such as journal name and…

The recent launch of qed's "top 1%" preprint ranking has sparked controversy, with concerns about its arbitrary nature, potential harm to authors, and low-quality inclusions. While the tool aims to provide valuable feedback, backlash against qed and its partnership with bioRxiv highlights the challenges and complexities within the evolving preprint landscape and academic community.

Lately, I have spent a considerable amount of time writing about my concerns regarding the direction of the preprint ecosystem and the behaviour of some of the actors within it. Increasingly, I worry that preprinting is being pushed toward becoming little more than a replica of the existing scholarly publishing system. For those of us who see preprints as an opportunity for genuine and meaningful change, that would be a profound disaster.

Members of our community will have noticed the absence of a familiar face in 2026. Unfortunately, we had to eliminate our Associate Director role late last

Over the past few decades, several reform movements have emerged across scholarly communication and academia. Open science, open access, efforts to reshape research culture, research assessment reform and growing discussions around trust in science are all trying to address genuine problems in how research is produced, evaluated, and communicated. Yet

Over the past few decades, several reform movements have emerged across scholarly communication and academia. Open science, open access, efforts to reshape research culture, research assessment reform and growing discussions around trust in science are all trying to address genuine problems in how research is produced, evaluated, and communicated. Yet

Below are my thoughts and takeaways from the recent Research to Reader conference (that’d be the one in 2026, for future readers of this post). This was my first time attending the Research t…

Our goal is to challenge the status quo, embrace innovation, and create meaningful, lasting change to academia across preprinting and open science, trust in research and academic culture.

Our goal is to challenge the status quo, embrace innovation, and create meaningful, lasting change to academia across preprinting and open science, trust in research and academic culture.

We took an in-depth investigation in to the current state of preprinting within the Life Sciences up to 2025. This report covers the broad preprinting trends, a detailed look at the openRxiv servers with. a focus on bioRxiv and a discussion of the trends we are likely to see across 2026. Within this, we make clear recommendations for advocacy in this area. Read the Report You can also watch a presentation of the key findings from the report on our YouTube channel Our key advocacy recommendations:

Jonathon Alexis Coates outlines how a constellation of static and dynamic indicators could provide a means for assessing the trustworthiness of published research

This is the report for the State of Preprints in the Life Sciences, investigating preprinting from 2013-2025 and the likely trends in 2026. The underlying code and figures are available from GitHub. The openrxivR package developed for this project can be downloaded from GitHub. Slides associated with this talk containing individual figures are available here.

Our goal is to challenge the status quo, embrace innovation, and create meaningful, lasting change to academia across preprinting and open science, trust in research and academic culture.

Zotero is a free, easy-to-use tool to help you collect, organize, cite, and share research.

Our goal is to challenge the status quo, embrace innovation, and create meaningful, lasting change to academia across preprinting and open science, trust in research and academic culture.

Zotero is a free, easy-to-use tool to help you collect, organize, cite, and share research.

See our Zotero library for a collection of studies investigating preprints; from their posting and use through to their quality and researcher perceptions. This is very much a living resource that is added to very regularly. If you're involved in research on preprints or advocate for preprint adoption then this is a valuable resource! This will help you advocate with evidence driven arguments.

We’re not here to create just another community. We’re here to build a tribe, a group that’s united by shared values, a common vision, and a true sense of belonging. Communities gather people with …

With over 7 years experience in advocating for preprint adoption and becoming leading experts in preprints and academic culture, we've compiled this 15 page guide for life science labs. This guide provides information and advice on how to embed preprints and open science principles into the cultural fabric of your lab group. Although aimed at new labs, this is highly applicable to more established groups too.  Follow Rippling Ideas (ripplingideas.org) to learn more and find more resources 

Robert Maxwell is largely responsible for the current business model in academic publishing. This model has corrupted science and resulted in a toxic academic culture that prioritises where work is published as opposed to the contents of the work.