A subtle but important point here is that when the manuscript is a preprint then there are two public-facing documents that are being tied together-- the "published" article and the preprint. The review-as-annotation becomes the cross-member in that document association.

Data for bioRxiv preprints from start to November 2018 (covering metadata and traction on social media)

Continues to be updated, viewable from rxivist.org and associated Zenodo data records (see link from rxivist)

Preprint available at https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/515643v2

An earlier version of this work is available as a preprint on bioRxiv: https://doi.org/10.1101/355289

Disclosure: I work for ASAPbio, a non-profit organisation working to improve transparency in science, including through the productive use of preprinting in the life sciences.

An earlier version of this work is available as a preprint on bioRxiv: https://doi.org/10.1101/169698

Disclosure: I work for ASAPbio, a non-profit organisation working to improve transparency in science, including through the productive use of preprinting in the life sciences.

An earlier version of this work is available as a preprint on bioRxiv: https://doi.org/10.1101/170720

Disclosure: I work for ASAPbio, a non-profit organisation working to improve transparency in science, including through the productive use of preprinting in the life sciences.

An earlier version of this work is available as a preprint on bioRxiv: https://doi.org/10.1101/192336

Disclosure: I work for ASAPbio, a non-profit organisation working to improve transparency in science, including through the productive use of preprinting in the life sciences.

An earlier version of this work is available as a preprint on bioRxiv: https://doi.org/10.1101/410217

Disclosure: I work for ASAPbio, a non-profit organisation working to improve transparency in science, including through the productive use of preprinting in the life sciences.

An earlier version of this work is available as a preprint on bioRxiv: https://doi.org/10.1101/409441

Disclosure: I work for ASAPbio, a non-profit organisation working to improve transparency in science, including through the productive use of preprinting in the life sciences.

An earlier version of this work is available as a preprint on bioRxiv: https://doi.org/10.1101/408880

Disclosure: I work for ASAPbio, a non-profit organisation working to improve transparency in science, including through the productive use of preprinting in the life sciences.

An earlier version of this work is available as a preprint on bioRxiv: https://doi.org/10.1101/400036

Disclosure: I work for ASAPbio, a non-profit organisation working to improve transparency in science, including through the productive use of preprinting in the life sciences.

Ini memang masalah lain. Banyak yang tidak tahu bahwa jumlah makalah akses terbuka terus meningkat setiap tahun. Bahkan untuk makalah yang berbayar, sudah ada kesadaran yang makin meningkat dari penulis untuk mengunggah pula versi pracetak (atau pra peninjauan) ke media-media repositori yang terbuka. Dari sisi penulis, saya juga menghimbau dengan sangat kesadaran mengenai hak cipta dan hak intelektual lainnya yang mereka miliki. Hak yang harus mereka manfaatkan untuk kepentingan masyarakat, bukan hanya diserahkan seluruhnya kepada penerbit, terutama penerbit komersial.

Artikel ini sangat menarik karena memberikan solusi kepada masalah sehari-hari. Siapa yang tidak ingin aman saat menggunakan kompor gas. Pasti semua orang bukan.

There are many repositories built by universities across Indonesia. However, the usage is fairly minimum without a good promotion, internally to the academic community as well as externally to the stakeholders. we don't know exactly what's the problem, but strangely, when we introduced INArxiv in mid August 2017, the public responses had been so overwhelming. Had the existing repository been lacked of scholarly communication strategies, or simply less knowledge about managing a repository, but this preprinting movement finds its way inside the mind of many Indonesian scientists.

Ini bukti bahwa jurnal LN juga membolehkan penulis menyitat sumber yang tidak berbahasa Inggris. Jadi kalau Anda ingin menggunakan Bahasa Inggris dan sedang menulis makalah untuk dikirim ke jurnal LN, maka tidak ada halangan bagi anda untuk menyitat dokumen yang ditulis oleh rekan-rekan penulis dari DN. INArxiv bisa jadi salah satu media yang tepat untuk kebutuhan itu.

You can annotate the pdf in Chrome with Hypothes.is (see https://web.hypothes.is/blog/annotating-pdfs-without-urls/)

Conduct prepeer review during the manuscript development on a web platform. That is what is happening in Therapoid.net.

Crowdsourcing review? Prepeer review as precursor to preprint server.

Why should we respect a preprint? I'm not sure that we should respect anonymously peer reviewed journal articles as much as we do. It's important to remain critical, and I worry that trying to put a veneer of 'respectability' over preprints is not as helpful as expecting people to read them to judge content.

"chosen not to hide behind the cloak of anonymity, or bypass the rigors of peer review by posting a version of this paper to my Web site.

This statement is a misunderstanding of Powell 2016, which states:

At Nature, the median review time has grown from 85 days to just above 150 days over the past decade, according to Himmelstein's analysis.

However,

the median review time — the time between submission and acceptance of a paper — has hovered at around 100 days for more than 30 years.

So while the median review time at Nature has gone from 85 to 150 days, this is not the case for all journals. See also the related Tweet.