Analysis of single comments left for bioRxiv preprints till September 2019

IntroductionWhile early commenting on studies is seen as one of the advantages of preprints, the type of such comments, and the people who post them, have not been systematically explored.Materials and methodsWe analysed comments posted between 21 May 2015 and 9 September 2019 for 1983 bioRxiv preprints that received only one comment on the bioRxiv website. The comment types were classified by three coders independently, with all differences resolved by consensus.ResultsOur analysis showed that 69% of comments were posted by non-authors (N = 1366), and 31% by the preprints’ authors themselves (N = 617). Twelve percent of non-author comments (N = 168) were full review reports traditionally found during journal review, while the rest most commonly contained praises (N = 577, 42%), suggestions (N = 399, 29%), or criticisms (N = 226, 17%). Authors’ comments most commonly contained publication status updates (N = 354, 57%), additional study information (N = 158, 26%), or solicited feedback for the preprints (N = 65, 11%).ConclusionsOur results indicate that comments posted for bioRxiv preprints may have potential benefits for both the public and the scholarly community. Further research is needed to measure the direct impact of these comments on comments made by journal peer reviewers, subsequent preprint versions or journal publications.     

Effects of Multimedia versus Live Professional Development on Teachers’ and Students’ Performance Related to the Question Exploration Routine

In each of two studies, teachers were randomly assigned to either a Virtual Workshop (VW) group that used a computerized professional development program or an Actual Workshop (AW) group that participated in face-to-face professional development, including discussion, feedback, and collaboration. In both studies, teachers’ posttest scores related to their knowledge of the Question Exploration Routine and their plans for using it were significantly higher than their pretest scores. In Study 2, both groups’ posttest scores with regard to implementation and planning of the routine were significantly greater than their pretest scores. There were no significant differences between the groups at posttesting on any measure. The posttest knowledge scores of the whole groups of students and the subgroups of students with LD being taught by both groups of teachers were significantly higher than their pretest scores. All teachers indicated that they were satisfied with the training and the routine. VW teachers in both studies indicated that they were satisfied with the software program.