(Episode 99) Preprints as a catalyst for change in Research Culture

earch Culture Uncovered Host [: 00:00:04

Welcome to the Research Culture Uncovered podcast, where in every episode we explore what is research culture and what should it be? You'll hear thoughts and opinions from a range of contributors to help you change research culture into what you want it to be.

Emily Goodall [: 00:00:21

Hello and welcome to another episode of the Research Culture Uncover podcast. I'm Emily Goodall, a member of the Researcher Development and culture team at the University of Leeds. I'm new to the podcast hosting team and we'll be bringing you conversations around research integrity and responsible research practices. Today, I'm delighted to be joined by Jonny Coates, who's the Associate Director of ASAP Bio and a passionate advocate for positive change in research culture, in particular, the power of preprints. He's also an experienced podcaster, so I feel that we are in good hands. Jonny, welcome to the podcast.

Jonny Coates [: 00:00:56

Experienced might be a stretch, but thank you.

Emily Goodall [: 00:01:01

Can you tell us a little bit more about your background and what inspired your journey from a researcher to become an advocate for preprints?

Jonny Coates [: 00:01:09

So my background is initially in immunology. So my master's degree was working with human knees and lungs. Did an amazing PhD at Sheffield, looking at macrophage subtypes in flies. Good news is they exist. So my PhD was a success. Then I moved to Cambridge University. That was looking at how your immune system responds to low oxygen levels. That was a very short postdoc.

Jonny Coates [: 00:01:35

And then I moved to London for about four years, and that was looking at how your immune system responds to things like a heart attack and a stroke. Right from the earliest part of my exposure to academia, I may be unfortunate as the right word to use, I was exposed to the more negative sides of academia. So my master's degree, I started it. There was an amazing group of people in the lab. By the end of my master's period, the lab had all quit. I stayed on over the summer and carried on some stuff. You know, I stayed on because I was told I'd be on, like, four different papers. I was on one.

Jonny Coates [: 00:02:08

Some of the other ones came out without my name on it. Then Sheffield was a great experience. It showed me what academia should be and could be. And then it was just a bit downhill again. And that's really what led me into the open science stuff because, well, one, the open science community is just full of the loveliest people ever. I'm not one of those people who can just sit back and allow things to happen. So my way of bringing about change was to try and figure out what I thought was causing all these issues, which is Scientific publishing. Everything in academia is tied up with where and how much you publish.

Jonny Coates [: 00:02:38

And so relieving that element should, in theory at least, lead to a slightly better research culture and experience for everyone overall. And that was my journey into preprints.

Emily Goodall [: 00:02:50

Can you tell us a little bit more about your role at ASAP Bio? So what you do now?

Jonny Coates [: 00:02:54

My role's very hard to define because ASAP Bio, much to many people's surprise, is a team of two. It's pretty much always been a team of two. But our secret weapon is that we have an amazing community of people we work with. These are everyone, from students right through to people who are running their own lab. And they get involved because, like me, they want to change things and they think this is a good way of doing it. It's because we have that wider community that we're able to produce and have an impact way above a team of two. One of my main responsibilities is to look over that community. So we run a fellows program every year.

Jonny Coates [: 00:03:29

We run a whole bunch of extra community initiatives every year. And my job is to make sure they run well, but also to come up with new ideas to keep things moving. I basically, I would describe my job as an advocate for open science and improvements in scholarly communication, which at the moment is a focus on preprints. Another weird, interesting bit is ACF IO was not ever initially meant to be just about preprints. It's just that's the thing that has the biggest potential to bring about real change, and so that's why we have that focus. But we do data and other things too, alongside sort of all community stuff. I do. I would still call myself a researcher.

Jonny Coates [: 00:04:10

I do meta research now that started during the pandemic. I published two meta research papers looking at how preprints had been used in response to the pandemic. But I still do that kind of research.

Emily Goodall [: 00:04:20

Oh, excellent. Thank you very much. I love the fact you bring in the idea of community. We run quite a lot of research culture workshops at Leeds, and it is all about the community and the people you work with. So I think that's a really good point.

Jonny Coates [: 00:04:32

Yeah, we blame systems for everything, but systems are people, and change only comes because you change someone's mind, not because you present them with, like, the best data in the world. And so community is just. It's so important and it is so unrecognized and unvalued generally. But we are seeing a shift away from that, which is interesting to see.

Emily Goodall [: 00:04:52

Yeah, hopefully a shift in the right Direction. For listeners who might be slightly less familiar with preprints, can you give us a little bit of an overview?

Jonny Coates [: 00:05:01

Very basically a preprint is a full manuscript that the author decides is ready for the world to see. So you would write your manuscript as you normally would and then you submit that to a preprint server. All these servers are free to use, so they're free to post, they're free to read, you can update your work on them. That there are no costs involved. If you are being charged, you're not uploading to a preprint server. These are manuscripts that have not undergone journal organized peer review, which is to say that they can still be peer reviewed by non journal means. But generally the things that are uploaded there have not had any review at all. Most preprints are unreviewed.

Jonny Coates [: 00:05:37

I think it's about 3% of the preprint literature is associated with a peer review. That does not mean they're low quality or anything like that. One of those projects I was looking at during the pandemic was the quality of preprints compared to their peer reviewed versions. It's like over 85% of the COVID stuff did not change and it was over 90 odd percent of the non Covid stuff didn't change. These are high quality bits of work, they are updatable. So if you put your preprint out and you get feedback, you can then update it in response to the feedback. Or if you're just doing normal lab work and you do an experiment that updates your work, you can add that into the work. It's not as horribly strict and final as a paper is.

Jonny Coates [: 00:06:15

They are citable things. They've got DOIs, they're permanent, they're not going to go anywhere. By all means. They are completely valid scholarly outputs. The only real downside at the moment to preprints are that institutions hugely vary in the level of recognition they give preprints. Some will allow you to use them in fellowships and promotion stuff. Embo, for example, their postdoctoral fellowships allow you to use preprints. A lot of institutions in the US in particular now allow you to include preprints when you're going for a promotion.

Jonny Coates [: 00:06:46

That's changing. That is what we're going to be focusing on in the future to try and really shift that. And they're a global thing, so still primarily Western Europe and the US who are posting preprints. But they are very much across the globe. It's a thing I recommend everyone do on your way to submitting your paper to a journal.

Emily Goodall [: 00:07:03

Thank you. That's a really good overview. What would you say are the biggest advantages of doing preprints? I think you've covered a couple of those already, but particularly for early career researchers.

Jonny Coates [: 00:07:14

So preprints benefit early career researchers more than any other group. There's a really bad notion with preprints at the moment that they speed things up and it's a really bad connotation because it suggests rushed. This isn't rushing. This is like we had with the pandemic vaccines. Right. We're basically shortening the very lengthy systems in place at the moment. So the reason ECRs benefit so much is that preprints are a way of getting things out up to six months earlier than a paper would come out. The obvious benefits from that are if you're applying for a fellowship, you now can show you're being productive.

Jonny Coates [: 00:07:43

There's also things along the lines of authorship issues. So one of the big problems people at the end of their contract as an editor researcher have is you're just about ready to get your paper out, but maybe you're also not. You now have to go do your new job and you can't do that last experiment. And I'm sure we all have those PIs who they'll give first authorship to whoever is in the lab. And so you leave having done three years worth of work, someone comes in, does a month's worth of work and now suddenly they are the first author with a preprint. You could have preprinted that work. You would have gotten your first authorship and then that other person maybe would have had that for the paper when they did all the revisions and had earned it. So also allows a bit of a more granular tracking and credit distribution.

Jonny Coates [: 00:08:22

There's huge advantages in terms of attention your work gets. So preprints because of their they're just being free to read and access. That means everyone in the world, whether you're a researcher or not, has access to that bit of work, which means they can cite it and use it. Not only that, but it's out six months earlier. So you've now got six months of your work being out there where people are using it, they are citing it and this leads to citation advantages. I think it depends where you read, but it's up to like 25/% extra citations to a preprint versus not preprinting that work. Obviously it's a hard thing to actually measure, but that's sort of the rough ballpark you're looking. The other benefit of that is not only are people using it, but you get collaborations through it.

Jonny Coates [: 00:09:03

So there's some really, really good examples where people were doing these threads about they just posted a preprint, here's all the cool data in it, they were really excited about it and then someone else in that field has come along and said, well actually this is really similar to stuff I'm doing or I would like to do this next. And then they've ended up collaborating. One of the best examples I saw was the preprint was posted, the Twitter discussion happened and then within a few days the collaboration had started. That data had come in and was analyzed before the preprint was actually published. So an entire experiment that was a big experiment was done before the paper was ever released, which is a huge benefit. I've also done this. Not being able to pay open access makes it very difficult to publish. So all my pandemic work was actually meant to just stay as a preprint.

Jonny Coates [: 00:09:46

It was never meant to be published. Not because it was bad quality, which is another misconception of preprints, but just because I couldn't afford to pay thousands of dollars in article processing charges. We published the second of those preprints online and within a day someone else had posted a very similar preprint. They got in touch and we ended up working together. Really fruitful collaboration. They strengthened our work, we strengthened their work. We ended up co publishing in plus Biology together and they paid our publishing fees, which is very nice of them. We would never have been published without that collaboration.

Jonny Coates [: 00:10:18

And this is all just. I say this as preprints, but this is just because people are being open and transparent and sharing stuff. Huge number of benefits to doing it. That being said, just because you post a preprint that does not entitle you to getting huge numbers of citations and people reading your work. If your work is very niche, that's not going to happen. That's not a bad thing. It will give you an advantage over not posting a preprint. But don't expect to be getting headlines because you posted a preprint.

Jonny Coates [: 00:10:43

It still depends on the quality of work you've done.

Emily Goodall [: 00:10:46

There's some really good examples there. That's kind of the positive side, you know. I'm going to ask you the negative side. What do you think are the barriers to the adoption of preprints and using those broader open research practices?

Jonny Coates [: 00:11:00

The barriers are mainly around. I split them into two categories. One is cultural attitudes and perceptions. The thing I've learned doing this job is perception matters. More than anything else, doesn't matter what the facts are, it's what people think and believe. The other one is that there's just no recognition for any of this activity. This is activity you've got to do on top of publishing and your normal stuff. Preprinting is easy.

Jonny Coates [: 00:11:23

A lot of the cases at the time when you're submitting to a journal, there's a button that says send this to the preprint server. I don't recommend you do it that way, but it makes it really, really easy. With things like open data, that's way harder because now you've got to put your data in a format that people can read it. You've got to go through the process of uploading it, make sure it is usable. There's a really good example of a downside to preprints and this that I can use again from the COVID work I did. The second paper we did where we were comparing preprints to their published versions, that was posted to Preprint. All of the data was posted alongside of it. Nothing happened until it was published in a journal.

Jonny Coates [: 00:11:54

When it was published, the day I think it was published, I went to bed. It was good day. We just published paper overnight. My phone just did not stop vibrating and buzzing at me. And when I checked, and this is like about 1 2am in the morning here, a guy from the US who I won't name because we had been so open, he went through our data literally, spreadsheet by spreadsheet, line by line. But he thought he'd found this brilliant flaw in our work and he took to Twitter to really go in on this. It got picked up by a Nature journalist who I would say very unprofessionally joined in on the Twitter side of things. The pair of them were so off the mark, it's unbelievable.

Jonny Coates [: 00:12:32

By the time I actually woke up the next day, it all been settled because other people benefit of open data have been able to come in, look at exactly the same thing and figure out what had been really going on. So that's a level of scrutiny most work never gets. Again, huge compliment to the team involved that our work could stand up to that kind of attack. That's the big fear I think people have with transparency and openness. It's that, well, it's all out there, so it's going to be attacked. That's a very rare thing to happen. It was horrible, but that's what science should be subjected to. If you're saying something that is important, if you're saying something that is bold in any way, your data should really back up what you're saying ours did.

Jonny Coates [: 00:13:11

He did go further. He did contact the editor of the journal and all the news reports he reported on our work, saying it was a lot of rubbish. They also all discounted him. Real thorough going through that is how science should be, though it's not particularly pleasant all the time. But if we're saying peer review is important to protect the literature, that's what peer review actually should be. And we could talk about the problems with peer review more generally. But you know, this is why posting a preprint, for example, isn't this big danger, because that work was very, very similar to the preprint version. And with the other one, with the institutional recognition side of things, that is changing.

Jonny Coates [: 00:13:47

Like I said, that's going to be our focus, to try and change it more towards preprints at least. But it's just, it's a really hard shift to do, moving away from metrics that are horribly used. They're not used correctly at all and they don't work very well to begin with. But when you have hundreds of people applying for a job, you need a way of sorting them and figuring out who to actually pay closer attention to. And unfortunately for now, metrics are used for that. The shift we at Ace of Bio are having puts us more in line with all those other organizations that are working towards reforming researcher assessment. We are doing that with a focus on preprints and the publishing side of it, because you do need all these things to happen kind of all at once. You can't do them in isolation.

Emily Goodall [: 00:14:29

Sounds like you've had quite an experience with social media there. Looking back on it. Would you do it that way again? Would you be so forward on social media? Or is that something you think? Would you advise others to do it?

Jonny Coates [: 00:14:42

I guess I think about this a lot. I'm very, very transparent across social media. That part of that is because if I'm going to do research on openness, my research has to be that I stick by the values I'm trying to distill. But because I also advocate for all this, for me, that translates into that as well. Part of being a good advocate is being as much as you can, being a good leader. Not that I want to call myself that in this space, but that's kind of the aims I have to work towards or the aims I hold myself towards. And so I am very, very open on social media with everything. I will share my opinion on these things.

Jonny Coates [: 00:15:19

It's often an evidence based opinion which gets lost a little bit based on some of the conversations I've had with mostly senior academics who don't like the approach I take. It rules me out of a certain number of jobs. Like I could never work for a publisher. Also, I would say the benefit is it got me my current job. So the previous executive director at Acerbio, Jessica, who is just the best person ever in science, we'd worked together a little bit beforehand. She was one of the co authors on those pandemic papers. And when this job came up, she got in contact because she knew I was looking for a job and she really want to work with me, I really want to work with her. Amazing.

Jonny Coates [: 00:15:59

I generally don't recommend other people do it though, because it is. You get attacked, your work gets attacked, you get attacked personally for things. Again, the flip side is because I talk about research culture a lot. I get, you know, I get DMS from people, random strangers all the time who are saying, thank you for saying this thing. I can't, but somebody needs to. So it really depends on whether I would ever recommend other people do it. We need more people to speak up and speak out because you don't get change if it's just a small number of voices. So it's a difficult choice.

Jonny Coates [: 00:16:32

We need more voices, but it's a big personal cost and I sometimes regret doing it. I sometimes don't. I'm currently still doing it. So either I haven't learned my lesson or I haven't quite figured out what I want to do yet.

Emily Goodall [: 00:16:46

Oh, thank you so much for your honesty. I think it is difficult to be an advocate. I agree. But I also agree that we need those advocates out there and we do need those voices. So thank you so much for that. We mentioned the publishing system. I think we're all very aware that the current system is in need of some reform. And that, as you've said, is going to take a really big cultural shift.

Emily Goodall [: 00:17:08

What role do you see preprints playing in that transformation?

Jonny Coates [: 00:17:13

The biggest benefit of a preprint is its potential to change publishing. And that's because you don't have journal names, you don't have any of these metrics associated with them. It puts the focus back on the quality of the science you do and it puts the control back with the authors. So this is. The authors have the choice to post the preprint in the first place. With the increasing growth of preprint review services, the authors also now have a choice of where they go to get reviews. And these reviews are portable with the paper for some journals. So you can have your preprint, you can have it reviewed, and you can take that package to a journal.

Jonny Coates [: 00:17:47

Preprints are currently at the point where they're on a bit of an edge. And there's a really. There was a good article about this recently talking about whether or not we are sacrificing the real potential of preprints in order to give them more credibility. There are a lot of proponents in the system who want more credibility. They see that as the way forward for preprint adoption. I didn't realize this before I started doing advocacy. Academics are the most conservative people I've ever come across. So when it comes to publishing, it's so entrenched, it is an incredibly difficult thing to change the people's minds on, especially the credibility part.

Jonny Coates [: 00:18:18

People will post a preprint if they benefits their career. They are doing that right. They're used in fellowship applications. So that's really, really great. But people still have an issue with preprints not being peer reviewed. And this is the thing where, you know, people matter. And people don't change their opinions based on evidence. They change it based on experience and belief.

Jonny Coates [: 00:18:34

Everyone, including me, when you submit your paper and it goes through peer review, PE review improves your paper. Not an argument. It just. It just does. But does it do it for the time and money it costs to do all that process? And I would argue it doesn't make improvements for the vast majority of cases enough to warrant that, because it does sometimes take so long that someone's career is now ended in academia, or it costs tens of thousands of dollars to do the experiments that reviewers want. And that is money that you could have spent on your next project. That is all really, really difficult. And there are people going down that path.

Jonny Coates [: 00:19:06

So this is the publish, review, curate model. I think this is what that group of people are trying to do. They're trying to take it down a path where it's much more about credibility. And my personal view is that it's a replication of the system we already have with some minor improvements. So you post a preprint, great. But you then need it to be peer reviewed and it needs to be curated. And that's the system we have. Effectively, we've already achieved that without using plc.

Jonny Coates [: 00:19:31

The other route is that this is the one I personally would rather we go down preprints first without the need for all these extra things. And it's a system that focuses purely on the science and things like the integrity of the researchers and the transparency and the fact that data is open, all those things are the most important bits. PRC advocates just to balance it out will tell you that's what they also want. I don't disagree with that as being what they want, but I don't think it's been thought out enough. It is so similar to what we have and it is such an invitation to the publishers.

Emily Goodall [: 00:20:03

So how do you think we can better support and empower researchers to advocate for changes in the publication system?

Jonny Coates [: 00:20:12

Depends on the stakeholder doing this. If you're running a lab, listen to your ecrs about where they want to do what they want to do with their work, right? Some of them might not want to preprint, but if they say I want a preprint and you never have, just do it. Their entire career could be at risk if they don't publish that push that work out as a preprint rather than putting it out as a paper six months later. So listen to people. That's listening is the biggest skill you need in advocacy. But even if you're not doing that, if you're running a lab or if you're running a department, have preprint friendly policies in place. We just pushed a white paper out onto Zenodo where you can go and there's tables on different levels of adoption for preprint policies and you can pick and choose whatever matches what you want. Have a policy in place that is open and transparent that will by the way help you recruit people who are that way inclined because they'll see you as a department that are doing forward brilliant thinking and they will want to join that.

Jonny Coates [: 00:21:05

So that's a positive for you. Have journal clubs that don't sit and talk about a published paper, do it about a preprint instead. Because if you talk about a preprint in your journal club now you can give that feedback to the authors and they can use it. And now the people in the journal club have benefited from actual training and doing a peer review. You can post it online so that they can start to build up their reviewer profile. Often the authors are very, very thankful for that kind of feedback. We do this a little bit with ASAP bio and we get responses back from authors who are incredibly happy that someone took the time to read their work in the first place. But to review it and share that and we've got some really nice stories that at some point I will collate and put out examples.

Jonny Coates [: 00:21:47

If you're higher level than that, if you're an institution again, have preprint friendly policies. Make sure you're going down that route. You know, when you're thinking about what researchers need, there's a series on Spark where they interview people who primary librarians who have completely upended their agreements with publishers. And there's some really good, interesting bits in there that you can take out that are relevant. So one of the main things that runs through all those is they talk to people and they listen about what the concerns are, what the needs are. But also they do a lot of effort sitting down with people one on one and talking to them and saying, you're not going to lose all these benefits you have currently. So, like all the access to journals, it's just, it might not be instant access, so you might have to wait. And so they've been able to switch their agreements, either get rid of the journal agreements they've got or switch to deals that are much, much cheaper.

Jonny Coates [: 00:22:42

So there's a lot of things we can do. Some of those are directly preprint, some of them are just nuanced things. When you are ready to submit your work, post it as a preprint and celebrate the preprint and then the paper, care less about that. It's just a formality. Now when you talk about your work, the first question everyone asks is where did you publish? Or where are you thinking about publishing? Stop asking those questions. You should be asking what did you do? Not where did you publish. When you're looking at people for hiring and promotion, take journal names out of it. Don't allow people to put journal names on their CVs.

Jonny Coates [: 00:23:12

Or if you want to do it yourself, take your own CV and take the journal names out. Leave the DOI and leave a link in. You know, CVs are not this thing that's printed out on paper anymore. People can press the links you put in there. So do that instead because it's a nudge towards removing the things we don't want and replacing the focus back on the actual work instead. So there's a lot of things we can do to move things forward, but listening and engaging a conversation is the most important one for everyone involved.

Emily Goodall [: 00:23:40

Some really good ideas there. I particularly like the journal club idea. Doing it on a preprint and then you're able to actually give back to the people who wrote the paper. I really like that idea. And also celebrating preprints as a really nice small change in culture, but something that we should be doing more of. You've mentioned the ASAP Bio Fellows program a couple of times. Could you tell us a little bit more about that and how people can get involved?

Jonny Coates [: 00:24:07

So this is something I run as part of ASAP bio. I've part my job here. So if you want to talk to me a lot more and see my face on an incredibly regular basis for a year, apply for the program. It is basically a training program. It's not just around preprints, but it's a focus on life science preprints. We will be running from March until September. Initially you'll get an introduction to what's wrong with our current system, which I've thoroughly enjoyed putting those slides together. They're new.

Jonny Coates [: 00:24:34

Then we've got one on preprints, the preprint landscape. We then have one placing preprints within the wider open access and open sign space. And then we've got things that are less about preprints, although there's a preprinting them. But these are just more things like how to be a good advocate, how to communicate, how to engage with preprints. And so you're getting a mix of skills out of doing it. And also as part of that, we ask you to deliver a local preprint based talk that's great for you because you get a bit of exposure locally. The other thing that is part of the program is the project track, which is an optional part alongside all this other stuff. You'll work with me to do some kind of project related to preprints.

Jonny Coates [: 00:25:17

And this year we've done two preprints, two YouTube videos, two podcast episodes, a four part webinar series and a bunch of other stuff as well. So we've done quite a lot this year. The aim is you get to do a bunch of different kind of skills. Some of them will be a bit more creative, some of them will be more sort of researchy based stuff. And they will run for part of the Fellows program. The application for that goes live on 1 January, closes on 10 February. You do not need to be a life scientist, you don't need to be an academic researcher. And it's not.

Jonny Coates [: 00:25:51

It's open to every career stage everywhere across the world. The only real requirements are you actually want to engage in any of this. You have to have a good grasp of written and spoken English, ideally northern English, because my accent, I've been told, is not always the easiest to understand, although I do slow it down for the Fellows program a little bit. And you have to have a good Internet connection because it is all virtual. That's Basically the only requirements. Otherwise it is open. We have people this year who have been not life scientists at all. They've been from quite diverse backgrounds.

Jonny Coates [: 00:26:20

We've had seven librarians, I think this year, six or seven librarians. So it really is open to everyone. It does focus on life sciences, but as long as you can get past that focus, what we do is actually very broad and applies to way more than just that. I think the biggest thing you get out of it is not actually the preprint knowledge, it's the like, the advocacy skills, the communication stuff. We do well.

Emily Goodall [: 00:26:44

Thank you so much for that. I think what we'll do is we'll put the links in the show notes. So if anybody wants to go and have a look and find out more about the Fellows program and perhaps apply, then the links will be in the show notes. For this episode, I wanted to finish today by looking ahead and I wanted to ask what excites you most about the future of research culture?

Jonny Coates [: 00:27:04

It's the people. As an example, this year on the Fellows, I've worked with a couple of fellows who have just been amazing. And we've got one who had to leave her country in Africa because it is currently in a civil war, and yet set up and run the Africa Reproducibility Network. And they did their own very long, big training program this year. It's very inspiring to see that kind of thing happen. And in my role, I get to come across those people a lot, which is the best bit about what I get to do. And it's those people who will lead to real, proper change. Change is happening.

Jonny Coates [: 00:27:39

It is happening slowly. But this is because it's about changing people's minds and perceptions, which is so hard to do. But there's a lot of really, really good people in the system who are increasingly fighting for change, more so than when I was doing this when I was in academia. So there's more of a community as well, which makes it easier to speak out.

Emily Goodall [: 00:28:01

I think that is actually a really beautiful note to end on. Sadly, we have run out of time today. I've learned a huge amount and I think you've provided us with plenty of food for thought. So thank you so much for coming on the episode today and thank you to everybody who is listening. Please do join us for future episodes. But for now, I think I'm going to say goodbye. And Jonny, I'll leave you with the last words.

Jonny Coates [: 00:28:28

That's a lot of pressure. My. I guess my parting words would be to always end on a call to action. There's a lesson for you. My call to action would always be not necessarily to post a preprint, which might be surprising, but to advocate for something. So maybe that is preprints, or maybe it's research culture change. Or maybe it's just getting that journal club to convert into a preprint club. Advocate for something and get your voice out there and use it.

Emily Goodall [: 00:28:57

Brilliant. Thank you very much and I'll say goodbye to our listeners now.

earch Culture Uncovered Host [: 00:29:02

Thanks for listening to the Research Culture Uncovered podcast. Please subscribe so you never miss out on our brand new episodes. And if you're enjoying the discussions, give us some love by dropping a five star rating and written review as it helps other research culturists find us. And please share with a friend and show them how to subscribe. Thanks for listening and here's to you and your Research Culture.