Use Of Preprints Research Articles

Attitudes and practices of open data, preprinting, and peer-review-A cross sectional study on Croatian scientists.

Attitudes towards open peer review, open data and use of preprints influence scientists' engagement with those practices. Yet there is a lack of validated questionnaires that measure these attitudes. The goal of our study was to construct and validate such a questionnaire and use it to assess attitudes of Croatian scientists. We first developed a 21-item questionnaire called Attitudes towards Open data sharing, preprinting, and peer-review (ATOPP), which had a reliable four-factor structure, and measured attitudes towards open data, preprint servers, open peer-review and open peer-review in small scientific communities. We then used the ATOPP to explore attitudes of Croatian scientists (n = 541) towards these topics, and to assess the association of their attitudes with their open science practices and demographic information. Overall, Croatian scientists' attitudes towards these topics were generally neutral, with a median (Md) score of 3.3 out of max 5 on the scale score. We also found no gender (P = 0.995) or field differences (P = 0.523) in their attitudes. However, attitudes of scientist who previously engaged in open peer-review or preprinting were higher than of scientists that did not (Md 3.5 vs. 3.3, P<0.001, and Md 3.6 vs 3.3, P<0.001, respectively). Further research is needed to determine optimal ways of increasing scientists' attitudes and their open science practices.

Adjusting the use of preprints to accommodate the ‘quality’ factor in response to COVID-19

Preprints are typically crude precursors of peer-reviewed papers that are placed almost immediately, save for some superficial screening, on an open-access repository to allow the information to reach readers quickly, circumventing the long-drawn process typically associated with processing in peer-reviewed journals. For early-career researchers who might be enthusiastic about obtaining some recognition for their efforts, or wanting open and public input about their work, preprints are certainly a useful publication choice. However, if health-related data and information have not been carefully scrutinised, they may pose a risk and may even serve as a source of public health misinformation. Surging growth and competition among preprint servers, coupled with a massive volume of COVID-19-related preprints, mainly on bioRxiv and medRxiv, as well as select indexing now being tested on PubMed, suggests that preprints are being increasingly used in the biomedical sciences. Stronger and more robust ethical policies are needed to screen preprints before they are released to the public, and even if this implies a slight delay in publication, it may increase academics' trust in this form of scientific information and communication. Clear and stringent ethical policies need to be urgently introduced by ethics groups such as COPE and the ICMJE, whose many member journals allow preprints to be posted before traditional peer review. Stringent ethical guidelines that treat misconduct equally in preprints and peer-reviewed papers will boost the integrity of academic publishing.

Open Science in Kenya: Where Are We?

According to the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), Open Science is the movement to make scientific research and data accessible to all. It has great potential for advancing science. At its core, it includes (but is not limited to) open access, open data, and open research. Some of the associated advantages are promoting collaboration, sharing and reproducibility in research, and preventing the reinvention of the wheel, thus saving resources. As research becomes more globalized and its output grows exponentially, especially in data, the need for open scientific research practices is more evident — the future of modern science. This has resulted in a concerted global interest in open science uptake. Even so, barriers still exist. The formal training curriculum in most, if not all, universities in Kenya does not equip students with the knowledge and tools to subsequently practice open science in their research. Therefore, to work openly and collaboratively, there is a need for awareness and training in the use of open science tools. These have been neglected, especially in most developing countries, and remain barriers to the cause. Moreover, there is scanty research on the state of affairs regarding the practice and/or adoption of open science. Thus, we developed, through the OpenScienceKE framework, a model to narrow the gap. A sensitize-train-hack-collaborate model was applied in Nairobi, the economic and administrative capital of Kenya. Using the model, we sensitized through seminars, trained on the use of tools through workshops, applied the skills learned in training through hackathons to collaboratively answer the question on the state of open science in Kenya. While the former parts of the model had 20–50 participants, the latter part mainly involved participants with a bioinformatics background, leveraging their advanced computational skills. This model resulted in an open resource that researchers can use to publish as open access cost-effectively. Moreover, we observed a growing interest in open science practices in Kenya through literature search and data mining and that lack of awareness and skills may still hinder the adoption and practice of open science. Furthermore, at the time of the analyses, we surprisingly found that out of the 20,069 papers downloaded from BioRXiv, only 18 had Kenyan authors, a majority of which are international (16) collaborations. This may suggest poor uptake of the use of preprints among Kenyan researchers. The findings in this study highlight the state of open science in Kenya and challenges facing its adoption and practice while bringing forth possible areas for primary consideration in the campaign toward open science. It also proposes a model (sensitize-train-hack-collaborate model) that may be adopted by researchers, funders and other proponents of open science to address some of the challenges faced in promoting its adoption in Kenya.

From Classic to COVID-Related: Some Communication Highlights of the 2021 AAAS Meeting

Well before the COVID-19 pandemic emerged, the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) chose “Understanding Dynamic Ecosystems” as the theme of its 2021 annual meeting, held February 8–11. This theme gained new meaning with the pandemic’s advent, the resultant conversion of the meeting to an online event, and the inclusion of meeting content on coronavirus-related concerns. As in past years, though, the meeting included panels, workshops, and other sessions on topical and other aspects of the communication of science. The following are some highlights that might interest science editors and those in related realms. Institution, Journal, Reporter: Strategically Mitigating COVID-19 Misinformation By Christina B Sumners This session brought together a university public information officer, a journal press officer, and a freelance journalist to discuss the use of preprints in popular science communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. Sarah McQuate, a public information officer at the University of Washington, discussed how she decides whether to promote her faculty’s research at the preprint stage. Before the pandemic, the university’s news office had published only 1 press release on a preprint. Between March 2020 and February 2021, it published 7. McQuate listed the criteria each preprint had to meet: It had a trusted author with whom she had worked before. It had a timely message or findings necessary to share now, not after lengthy peer review. The research methods had to be standard in their field. The research findings had to be expected, or at least unsurprising. The preprint had to have […]

Journal attitudes and outcomes of preprints in dermatology

The use of preprints, manuscripts that can be uploaded to a public server and made almost immediately available for public dissemination without peer review, is becoming increasingly common.1 Preprint servers are not typically associated with established peer-reviewed journals and often operate independently. Proponents of preprints point toward improved rapid dissemination of results and opportunities for crowdsourced feedback before submission to peer-reviewed journals.1 Conversely, inconsistent upload criteria among preprint servers (such as lack of guidance for reporting conflict of interest or image manipulation),1 and the risk for widespread discourse of non-peer reviewed results by news media may impinge on research integrity.2 As members of the public may not understand the difference between preprints and traditionally peer-reviewed articles, preprints have the potential to cause widespread confusion and mistrust.2 Use of preprints may also make publication of results in traditional journals more difficult, as the results may be perceived to be less novel. Despite controversy, the number of preprints continue to rise.3 There is limited understanding of how dermatology journals view and consider preprints. In this study, we explore dermatology journal policies toward the submission of preprint articles for publication, and corresponding publication outcomes of dermatology articles previously uploaded to a large clinically oriented preprint server.

The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape.

The world continues to face a life-threatening viral pandemic. The virus underlying the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused over 98 million confirmed cases and 2.2 million deaths since January 2020. Although the most recent respiratory viral pandemic swept the globe only a decade ago, the way science operates and responds to current events has experienced a cultural shift in the interim. The scientific community has responded rapidly to the COVID-19 pandemic, releasing over 125,000 COVID-19-related scientific articles within 10 months of the first confirmed case, of which more than 30,000 were hosted by preprint servers. We focused our analysis on bioRxiv and medRxiv, 2 growing preprint servers for biomedical research, investigating the attributes of COVID-19 preprints, their access and usage rates, as well as characteristics of their propagation on online platforms. Our data provide evidence for increased scientific and public engagement with preprints related to COVID-19 (COVID-19 preprints are accessed more, cited more, and shared more on various online platforms than non-COVID-19 preprints), as well as changes in the use of preprints by journalists and policymakers. We also find evidence for changes in preprinting and publishing behaviour: COVID-19 preprints are shorter and reviewed faster. Our results highlight the unprecedented role of preprints and preprint servers in the dissemination of COVID-19 science and the impact of the pandemic on the scientific communication landscape.

Author preprint behaviour and non‐compliance with journal preprint policies: One biomedical journal's experience

AbstractWe investigated author use of preprints including compliance with journal preprint policy, timing of posting, likelihood of preprint review impacting manuscript content, and consistency in licensing. Submissions to one biomedical journal were reviewed over 2.5 years. About 24% of authors were non‐compliant with the journal's preprint policy. Only three journal articles out of 76 posted as preprints received publicly available comments on the preprints. Additionally, most preprints and articles were submitted so closely together temporally (&lt;10 days apart) that even if comments had been posted online in response to the preprint, they were unlikely to have led to changes in manuscript content submitted to the journal. iThenticate plagiarism detection software scored preprints and articles 83% similar (median), providing additional evidence that preprint posting does not notably affect manuscript content. Lastly, preprint versus journal publication licence types were compared. Most authors chose different licence types for the preprint and subsequent journal article, setting up an inherent conflict about reuse of very similar work and incompatible dual licensing of essentially a single product. These insights into author use of preprints and compliance with policy furthers understanding of author utilization of preprints, informs future author education efforts, and supports attempts to harmonize licensing.

Communicating Scientific Uncertainty in an Age of COVID-19: An Investigation into the Use of Preprints by Digital Media Outlets

ABSTRACT In this article, we investigate the surge in use of COVID-19-related preprints by media outlets. Journalists are a main source of reliable public health information during crises and, until recently, journalists have been reluctant to cover preprints because of the associated scientific uncertainty. Yet, uploads of COVID-19 preprints and their uptake by online media have outstripped that of preprints about any other topic. Using an innovative approach combining altmetrics methods with content analysis, we identified a diversity of outlets covering COVID-19-related preprints during the early months of the pandemic, including specialist medical news outlets, traditional news media outlets, and aggregators. We found a ubiquity of hyperlinks as citations and a multiplicity of framing devices for highlighting the scientific uncertainty associated with COVID-19 preprints. These devices were rarely used consistently (e.g., mentioning that the study was a preprint, unreviewed, preliminary, and/or in need of verification). About half of the stories we analyzed contained framing devices emphasizing uncertainty. Outlets in our sample were much less likely to identify the research they mentioned as preprint research, compared to identifying it as simply “research.” This work has significant implications for public health communication within the changing media landscape. While current best practices in public health risk communication promote identifying and promoting trustworthy sources of information, the uptake of preprint research by online media presents new challenges. At the same time, it provides new opportunities for fostering greater awareness of the scientific uncertainty associated with health research findings.

Changes in evidence for studies assessing interventions for COVID-19 reported in preprints: meta-research study

BackgroundThe increasing use of preprints to disseminate evidence on the effect of interventions for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) can lead to multiple evidence sources for a single study, which may differ in the reported evidence. We aim to describe the proportion of evidence on the effect of interventions for COVID-19 from preprints and journal articles and map changes in evidence between and within different sources reporting on the same study.MethodsMeta-research study. We screened the Cochrane living systematic review and network meta-analysis (COVID-NMA) database to identify all preprints and journal articles on all studies assessing interventions for COVID-19 published up to 15 August 2020. We compared all evidence sources (i.e., preprint and associated journal article) and the first and latest versions of preprints for each study to identify changes in two evidence components: study results (e.g., numeric change in hazard ratio, odds ratio, event rate, or change in p value > or < 0.05 in any outcome) and abstract conclusions (classified as positive, negative or neutral regarding the intervention effect, and as reporting uncertainty in the findings or not). Changes in study results were further classified as important changes if they (1) represented a change in any effect estimate by ≥ 10% and/or (2) led to a change in the p value crossing the threshold of 0.05.ResultsWe identified 556 studies. In total, 338 (61%) had been reported in a preprint: 66 (20%) of these had an associated journal article (median time to publication 76 days [interquartile range (IQR) 55–106]) and 91 (27%) had > 1 preprint version. A total of 139 studies (25% of the overall sample) were reported in multiple evidence sources or versions of the same source: for 63 (45%), there was a change in at least one evidence component between or within sources (42 [30%] had a change in study results, and in 29 [21%] the change was classified as important; 33 [24%] had a change in the abstract conclusion). For studies with both a preprint and an article, a median of 29% (IQR 14–50) of total citations were attributed to the preprint instead of the article.ConclusionsResults on the effect of interventions for COVID-19 are often reported in multiple evidence sources or source versions for a single study. Evidence is not stable between and within evidence sources. Real-time linkage of all sources per study could help to keep systematic reviews up-to-date.

Editorial - Preprint e postprint em publicações científicas e no Direito: discussões e medidas para ciência aberta e divulgação de pesquisas

Recentemente, a Revista Brasileira de Direito Processual Penal alterou suas políticas editoriais para, em conformidade com as diretrizes de Scielo e COPE, autorizar e incentivar o depósito de manuscritos em servidores certificados de preprint e postprint, de modo a ampliar a publicidade, a transparência e a celeridade na divulgação dos resultados de pesquisas científicas. Neste editorial, a partir de revisão bibliográfica, busca-se examinar alguns aspectos dessas práticas científicas, como sua origem, definição, benefícios e problemas, com foco na utilização nas ciências jurídicas – em particular, as criminais. Conclui-se que a tendência de ampliação de preprints aporta um cenário de novas perspectivas à produção de conhecimento e à editoração de revistas científicas, contribuindo com a consolidação de medidas para uma ciência aberta. Seus riscos e benefícios devem ser ponderados com cautela, mas os potenciais benefícios se sobressaem, como a maior celeridade na divulgação científica e a possibilidade de maior debate para aprimoramentos na pesquisa até a sua publicação definitiva.

How many preprints have actually been printed and why: a case study of computer science preprints on arXiv

Preprints play an increasingly critical role in academic communities. There are many reasons driving researchers to post their manuscripts to preprint servers before formal submission to journals or conferences, but the use of preprints has also sparked considerable controversy, especially surrounding the claim of priority. In this paper, a case study of computer science preprints submitted to arXiv from 2008 to 2017 is conducted to quantify how many preprints have eventually been printed in peer-reviewed venues. Among those published manuscripts, some are published under different titles and without an update to their preprints on arXiv. In the case of these manuscripts, the traditional fuzzy matching method is incapable of mapping the preprint to the final published version. In view of this issue, we introduce a semantics-based mapping method with the employment of Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT). With this new mapping method and a plurality of data sources, we find that 66% of all sampled preprints are published under unchanged titles and 11% are published under different titles and with other modifications. A further analysis was then performed to investigate why these preprints but not others were accepted for publication. Our comparison reveals that in the field of computer science, published preprints feature adequate revisions, multiple authorship, detailed abstract and introduction, extensive and authoritative references and available source code.

Preprints and Scholarly Communication: Adoption, Practices, Drivers and Barriers.

Background: Since 2013, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of preprint servers available online. To date, little is known about the position of researchers, funders, research performing organisations and other stakeholders with respect to this fast-paced landscape. In this article, we explore the benefits and challenges of preprint posting, along with issues such as infrastructure and financial sustainability. We also discuss the definition of a 'preprint' in different communities, and the impact this has on further uptake. Methods: This study is based on 38 detailed semi-structured interviews of key stakeholders based on a purposive heterogeneous sampling approach. Interviews were undertaken between October 2018 and January 2019. These were recorded, transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis to identify trends. Interview questions were designed based on Innovation Diffusion Theory, which is also used to interpret the results of this study. Results: Our study is the first using empirical data to understand the new wave of preprint servers and found that early and fast dissemination is the most appealing feature of the practice. The main concerns are related to the lack of quality assurance and the 'Ingelfinger rule'. We identified trust as an essential enabler of preprint posting and stress the enabling role of Twitter in showcasing preprints and enabling comments on these. Conclusions: The preprints landscape is evolving fast and disciplinary communities are at different stages in the innovation diffusion process. The landscape is characterised by significant experimentation, which leads to the conclusion that a one-size-fits-all approach to preprints is not feasible. Cooperation and active engagement between the stakeholders involved will play an important role in the future. In our paper, we share questions for the further development of the preprints landscape, with the most important being whether preprint posting will develop as a publisher- or researcher-centric practice.

Preprints and Scholarly Communication: An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Adoption, Practices, Drivers and Barriers

Background: Since 2013, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of preprint servers. Little is known about the position of researchers, funders, research performing organisations and other stakeholders with respect to this fast-paced landscape. In this article, we explore the perceived benefits and challenges of preprint posting, alongside issues including infrastructure and financial sustainability. We also discuss the definition of a ‘preprint’ in different communities, and the impact this has on uptake. Methods: This study is based on 38 semi-structured interviews of key stakeholders, based on a purposive heterogeneous sampling approach and undertaken between October 2018 and January 2019. Interviewees were primarily drawn from biology, chemistry and psychology, where use of preprints is growing. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis to identify trends. Interview questions were designed based on Innovation Diffusion Theory, which was also used to interpret our results. Results: Participants were conscious of the rising prominence of preprints and cited early and fast dissemination as their most appealing feature. Preprints were also considered to enable broader access to scientific literature and increased opportunities for informal commenting. The main concerns related to the lack of quality assurance and the ‘Ingelfinger rule’. We identified trust as an essential factor in preprint posting, and highlight the enabling role of Twitter in showcasing preprints. Conclusions: The preprints landscape is evolving fast, and disciplinary communities are at different stages in the innovation diffusion process. The landscape is characterised by experimentation, which leads to the conclusion that a one-size-fits-all approach to preprints is not feasible. Cooperation and active engagement between the stakeholders involved will play an important role going forward. We share questions for the further development of the preprints landscape, with the most important being whether preprint posting will develop as a publisher- or researcher-centric practice.

A systematic review and evaluation of Zika virus forecasting and prediction research during a public health emergency of international concern.

IntroductionEpidemic forecasting and prediction tools have the potential to provide actionable information in the midst of emerging epidemics. While numerous predictive studies were published during the 2016–2017 Zika Virus (ZIKV) pandemic, it remains unknown how timely, reproducible, and actionable the information produced by these studies was.MethodsTo improve the functional use of mathematical modeling in support of future infectious disease outbreaks, we conducted a systematic review of all ZIKV prediction studies published during the recent ZIKV pandemic using the PRISMA guidelines. Using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and grey literature review, we identified studies that forecasted, predicted, or simulated ecological or epidemiological phenomena related to the Zika pandemic that were published as of March 01, 2017. Eligible studies underwent evaluation of objectives, data sources, methods, timeliness, reproducibility, accessibility, and clarity by independent reviewers.Results2034 studies were identified, of which n = 73 met the eligibility criteria. Spatial spread, R0 (basic reproductive number), and epidemic dynamics were most commonly predicted, with few studies predicting Guillain-Barré Syndrome burden (4%), sexual transmission risk (4%), and intervention impact (4%). Most studies specifically examined populations in the Americas (52%), with few African-specific studies (4%). Case count (67%), vector (41%), and demographic data (37%) were the most common data sources. Real-time internet data and pathogen genomic information were used in 7% and 0% of studies, respectively, and social science and behavioral data were typically absent in modeling efforts. Deterministic models were favored over stochastic approaches. Forty percent of studies made model data entirely available, 29% provided all relevant model code, 43% presented uncertainty in all predictions, and 54% provided sufficient methodological detail to allow complete reproducibility. Fifty-one percent of predictions were published after the epidemic peak in the Americas. While the use of preprints improved the accessibility of ZIKV predictions by a median of 119 days sooner than journal publication dates, they were used in only 30% of studies.ConclusionsMany ZIKV predictions were published during the 2016–2017 pandemic. The accessibility, reproducibility, timeliness, and incorporation of uncertainty in these published predictions varied and indicates there is substantial room for improvement. To enhance the utility of analytical tools for outbreak response it is essential to improve the sharing of model data, code, and preprints for future outbreaks, epidemics, and pandemics.

High adoption rates in a new preprint service from Springer Nature and Research Square

In recent years, funders have increased their support for early sharing of biomedical research through the use of preprints. For most, such as the COAlitionS group of funders (ASAPbio 2019) and the Gates foundation, this takes the form of active encouragement, while for others, it is mandated. But despite these motivations, few authors are routinely depositing their work as a preprint before submitting to a journal.&#x0D; Some journals have started offering authors the option of posting their work early at the point at which it is submitted for review. These include PLOS, who offer a link to BiorXiv, the Cell journals, who offer SSRN posting through ‘Sneak Peak’, and Nature Communications, who offer posting to any preprint and a link from the journal page called ‘Under Consideration’. Uptake has ranged from 3% for the Nature pilot, to 18% for PLOS (The Official Plos Blog 2018).&#x0D; In order to encourage more researchers to post their work early, we have been offering authors who submit to BMC Series titles the opportunity to post their work as a preprint on Research Square, a new platform that lets authors share and improve their research. To encourage participation, authors are offered a greater amount of control and transparency over the peer review process if they opt in. First, they are given a detailed peer review timeline which updates in real time every time an event occurs on their manuscript (reviewer invited, reviewer accepts etc). Second, they are encouraged to share their preprint with colleagues, who are able to post comments on the paper. These comments are sent to the editor when they are making their decision. Third, authors can suggest potential peer reviewers, recommendations which are also passed onto the editor to vet and invite.&#x0D; Together, these incentives have had a positive impact on authors choosing to post a preprint. Among the journals that offer this service, the average opt-in rate is 40%. This translates to over 3,000 manuscripts (as of July 2019) that have been posted to Research Square since the launch of the service in October 2018.&#x0D; In this talk I will demonstrate the functionality of Research Square, and provide demographic and discipline data on which areas are most and least likely to post.

Applying organized skepticism to preprints

A preprint is a scholarly work posted by the author(s) in an openly accessible platform, usually before or in parallel with submission to a peer reviewed publication. While the sharing of manuscripts via preprint platforms has been common for many years in disciplines such as physics and mathematics, uptake in other disciplines had, until very recently, been low. The use of preprints is now growing exponentially. The reasons for this appear to be based on several purported advantages of preprints that have not been thoroughly assessed: low cost (but is it sustainable?); immediate publication; establishes precedence; improves quality of papers pre-submission; eliminates journal hierarchies and inequalities; identifies hypotheses not to test further (by making negative results available); a source of submissions for journals. I will take a skeptical view of these advantages and ask: do preprints really accomplish all of this? I will also present the many disadvantages – even dangers – of preprints as these have not been adequately scrutinized: bypasses peer review allowing documents containing unvetted claims to be made freely available; results in multiple competing versions (all of which are citable) of what – without careful and informed examination – appears to be the same content to persist in perpetuity (the preprint version of which is much more likely to contain errors and unvetted claims); presently, no one is responsible for updating the preprint server version, nor to link it to the final published version.

Preprint policies among 14 academic publishers

The objective of this study was to assess how 14 large and established scientific publishers have adopted the use of preprints and how their policies changed in a one-year period between June 2017 and June 2018, if any. The core search was performed using the Sherpa/RoMEO database. Of all publishers (2516, now 2553) listed in the RoMEO database, 80.3% of the publishers examined allow self-archiving, but only half of the publishers (47.3%) allow the archiving of preprints in February of 2018, while this percentage increased to 48% in June 2018. These data were practically constant over a one-year period even as the number of preprint servers has increased. Several exceptions exist among journals within each of the tested Sherpa/RoMEO-indexed publishers, and in some cases, a reversal in policy was observed, i.e., from allowing to no longer allowing the archival of preprints.

Preprinting Microbiology.

ABSTRACT The field of microbiology has experienced significant growth due to transformative advances in technology and the influx of scientists driven by a curiosity to understand how microbes sustain myriad biochemical processes that maintain Earth. With this explosion in scientific output, a significant bottleneck has been the ability to rapidly disseminate new knowledge to peers and the public. Preprints have emerged as a tool that a growing number of microbiologists are using to overcome this bottleneck. Posting preprints can help to transparently recruit a more diverse pool of reviewers prior to submitting to a journal for formal peer review. Although the use of preprints is still limited in the biological sciences, early indications are that preprints are a robust tool that can complement and enhance peer-reviewed publications. As publishing moves to embrace advances in Internet technology, there are many opportunities for preprints and peer-reviewed journals to coexist in the same ecosystem.

Forum

‘Forum’ has seen a procession of discussions on the subject of professional communication, the chief burden of which has been the need to establish a level of scientific reporting within the Union that can be properly appraised and readily assimilated by the members. This seems to imply increasing efforts to maintain high quality in presentations, and to reduce repetition of reports to a minimum. Some discussants (such as Zurflueh and Roederer in the May ‘Forum’) have suggested that an increased use of preprints and other ‘semi‐publications’ should be considered in order to lessen the flood of presentations in meetings and journals. I should like to pursue this suggestion further.