Use Of Preprints Research Articles

Stark Decline in Journalists’ Use of Preprints Postpandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the use of preprints, aiding rapid research dissemination but also facilitating the spread of misinformation. This study analyzes media coverage of preprints from 2014 to 2023, revealing a significant postpandemic decline. Our findings suggest that heightened awareness of the risks associated with preprints has led to more cautious media practices. While the decline in preprint coverage may mitigate concerns about premature media exposure, it also raises questions about the future role of preprints in science communication, especially during emergencies. Balanced policies based on up-to-date evidence are needed to address this shift.

An evaluation of the preprints produced at the beginning of the 2022 mpox public health emergency

BackgroundPreprints are scientific articles that have not undergone the peer-review process. They allow the latest evidence to be rapidly shared, however it is unclear whether they can be confidently used for decision-making during a public health emergency. This study aimed to compare the data and quality of preprints released during the first four months of the 2022 mpox outbreak to their published versions.MethodsEligible preprints (n = 76) posted between May to August 2022 were identified through an established mpox literature database and followed to July 2024 for changes in publication status. Quality of preprints and published studies was assessed by two independent reviewers to evaluate changes in quality, using validated tools that were available for the study design (n = 33). Tools included the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2); and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists. The questions in each tool led to an overall quality assessment of high quality (no concerns with study design, conduct, and/or analysis), moderate quality (minor concerns) or low quality (several concerns). Changes in data (e.g. methods, outcomes, results) for preprint-published pairs (n = 60) were assessed by one reviewer and verified by a second.ResultsPreprints and published versions that could be evaluated for quality (n = 25 pairs) were mostly assessed as low quality. Minimal to no change in quality from preprint to published was identified: all observational studies (10/10), most case series (6/7) and all surveillance data analyses (3/3) had no change in overall quality, while some diagnostic test accuracy studies (3/5) improved or worsened their quality assessment scores. Among all pairs (n = 60), outcomes were often added in the published version (58%) and less commonly removed (18%). Numerical results changed from preprint to published in 53% of studies, however most of these studies (22/32) had changes that were minor and did not impact main conclusions of the study.ConclusionsThis study suggests the minimal changes in quality, results and main conclusions from preprint to published versions supports the use of preprints, and the use of the same critical evaluation tools on preprints as applied to published studies, in decision-making during a public health emergency.

Describing the Landscape of Medical Education Preprints on MedRxiv: Current Trends and Future Recommendations.

A preprint is a version of a research manuscript posted to a preprint server prior to peer review. Preprints enable authors to quickly and openly share research, afford opportunities for expedient feedback, and enable immediate listing of research on grant and promotion applications. In medical education, most journals welcome preprints, which suggests that preprints play a role in the field's discourse. Yet, little is known about medical education preprints, including author characteristics, preprint use, and ultimate publication status. This study provides an overview of preprints in medical education to better understand their role in the field's discourse. The authors queried medRxiv, a preprint repository, to identify preprints categorized as "medical education" and downloaded related metadata. CrossRef was queried to gather information on preprints later published in journals. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. Between 2019 and 2022, 204 preprints were classified in medRxiv as "medical education," with most deposited in 2021 (n = 76; 37.3%). On average, preprint full-texts were downloaded 1,875.2 times, and all were promoted on social media. Preprints were authored, on average, by 5.9 authors. Corresponding authors were based in 41 countries, with 45.6% in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada. Almost half (n = 101; 49.5%) became published articles in predominantly peer-reviewed journals. Preprints appeared in 65 peer-reviewed journals, with BMC Medical Education (n = 9; 8.9%) most represented. Medical education research is being deposited as preprints, which are promoted, heavily accessed, and subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals, including medical education journals. Considering the benefits of preprints and the slowness of medical education publishing, it is likely that preprint depositing will increase and preprints will be integrated into the field's discourse. The authors propose next steps to facilitate responsible and effective creation and use of preprints.

Las políticas globales y las realidades locales y regionales del acceso abierto: el Plan S y Latinoamérica

This paper examines the tension between current global policies and the local and regional realities of open access that, while differing in their approaches, aim to open scientific knowledge. Specifically, we compare Plan S and cOAlition S, a European born policy with global aspirations, to the traditional dissemination of science of the Latin American publishing system, highlighting the disagreements that challenge regional and local communication principles, sovereignty, and horizons. In that regard, three conflicts are outlined: 1) the publishing framework developed by read and publish agreements has led to a few companies gaining central relevance and the institutionalization of article processing or publishing charges; 2) the risk of outsourcing of key research processes such as peer review, now conceptualized as a service, endangers scientific rigor, its sustainability, and its purpose; 3) the adoption of non-restrictive licenses such as CC BY allows subsequent commercialization of research results, exacerbated by strategies promoting the use of preprints under this license. We conclude that while read and publish agreements consolidated a commercial strategy under new discourses of openness, new guidelines fail to propose viable, feasible, and sustainable strategies for the academic community and, even further, divert of the central aspect of equity pursued by the discourse of Plan S and cOAlition S.

The Use of Preprints in Doctorate Programs: A Citation Analysis Study of Trends in Chemistry and Physics Dissertations

The Use of Preprints in Doctorate Programs: A Citation Analysis Study of Trends in Chemistry and Physics Dissertations

A registered report survey of open research practices in psychology departments in the UK and Ireland.

Open research practices seek to enhance the transparency and reproducibility of research. While there is evidence of increased uptake in these practices, such as study preregistration and open data, facilitated by new infrastructure and policies, little research has assessed general uptake of such practices across psychology university researchers. The current study estimates psychologists' level of engagement in open research practices across universities in the United Kingdom and Ireland, while also assessing possible explanatory factors that may impact their engagement. Data were collected from 602 psychology researchers in the United Kingdom and Ireland on the extent to which they have implemented various practices (e.g., use of preprints, preregistration, open data, open materials). Here we present the summarized descriptive results, as well as considering differences between various categories of researcher (e.g., career stage, subdiscipline, methodology), and examining the relationship between researcher's practices and their self-reported capability, opportunity, and motivation (COM-B) to engage in open research practices. Results show that while there is considerable variability in engagement of open research practices, differences across career stage and subdiscipline of psychology are small by comparison. We observed consistent differences according to respondent's research methodology and based on the presence of institutional support for open research. COM-B dimensions were collectively significant predictors of engagement in open research, with automatic motivation emerging as a consistently strong predictor. We discuss these findings, outline some of the challenges experienced in this study, and offer suggestions and recommendations for future research. Estimating the prevalence of responsible research practices is important to assess sustained behaviour change in research reform, tailor educational training initiatives, and to understand potential factors that might impact engagement.

Can open peer review improve uptake of preprints into policies? Evidence from a causal inference

Abstract The advantage of no publication time lag had led to the use of preprints as research evidence for public policy development that required a rapid response. However, the opposite side of the lack of publication time lag for preprints was their usual lack of peer review, which was the main reason why preprints were criticized as low quality and unreliable. This study aimed to investigate the effects of open peer review on the uptake of preprints into policies (measured by preprints being cited in policy documents). The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) preprints from bioRxiv and medRxiv were used as a sample (n = 20,959). A causal inference approach, namely, propensity score matching analysis, was used to examine the dataset. Our study found that open peer review significantly increased the uptake of preprints by policies. Limitations of this study were also discussed. This study could bring insights to researchers and preprint servers in improving the uptake of preprints into policies.

HTA249 The Use of Preprints in Health Technology Assessment during Sars-Cov-2 Pandemic

HTA249 The Use of Preprints in Health Technology Assessment during Sars-Cov-2 Pandemic

Exploring the use of preprints in dentistry

ObjectiveThis study aims to assess the use, impact, and dissemination of preprints in dentistry. MethodsThis is a meta-research study with a cross-sectional design. We included preprints published in dentistry, regardless of the year of publication. Searches were performed in the medRxiv.org and Preprints.org platforms and restricted to English. One researcher extracted the data, and another researcher verified data consistency. The following data were extracted: year of publication, country of the corresponding author, number of abstract and full-text views and downloads, Altmetric attention score, whether the preprint was mentioned in other servers such as Twitter and Publons, number of mentions in other servers, number of citations in the Dimensions database, and whether the preprint had already been published in a peer-reviewed journal. If already published, we extracted the journal's impact factor (JCR 2021) and the number of citations in the Dimensions database. We conducted a descriptive analysis of the extracted characteristics and explored relationships between metrics using the Spearman correlation. ResultsWe identified 276 preprints. Most of the studies were published between 2020 and 2022 (n = 229), especially those from ten countries. The most-cited preprint and published article are the same study. Only the correlation between the number of preprint citations and peer-reviewed article citations in the Dimensions database showed a large positive association (Spearman's rho = 0.5809). ConclusionPreprints gained popularity over the last several years due to the COVID-19 pandemic and reached a larger audience, especially on platforms such as Twitter. Clinical significancePreprint publishing allows faster dissemination of science for the benefit of society.

Designing, conducting, and reporting reproducible animal experiments.

In biomedicine and many other fields, there are growing concerns around the reproducibility of research findings, with many researchers being unable to replicate their own or others' results. This raises important questions as to the validity and usefulness of much published research. In this review, we aim to engage researchers in the issue of research reproducibility and equip them with the necessary tools to increase the reproducibility of their research. We first highlight the causes and potential impact of non-reproducible research and emphasise the benefits of working reproducibly for the researcher and broader research community. We address specific targets for improvement and steps that individual researchers can take to increase the reproducibility of their work. We next provide recommendations for improving the design and conduct of experiments, focusing on in vivo animal experiments. We describe common sources of poor internal validity of experiments and offer practical guidance for limiting these potential sources of bias at different experimental stages, as well as discussing other important considerations during experimental design. We provide a list of key resources available to researchers to improve experimental design, conduct, and reporting. We then discuss the importance of open research practices such as study preregistration and the use of preprints and describe recommendations around data management and sharing. Our review emphasises the importance of reproducible work and aims to empower every individual researcher to contribute to the reproducibility of research in their field.

Researchers support preprints and open access publishing, but with reservations: A questionnaire survey of MBSJ members.

Since the 1990s, journals have become increasingly online and open access. In fact, about 50% of articles published in 2021 were open access. The use of preprints (i.e., non-peer-reviewed articles) has also increased. However, there is limited awareness of these concepts among academics. Therefore, we conducted a questionnaire-based survey among members of the Molecular Biology Society of Japan. The survey was conducted between September 2022 and October 2022, with 633 respondents, 500 of whom (79.0%) were faculty members. In total, 478 (76.6%) respondents had published articles as open access, and 571 (91.5%) wanted to publish their articles in open access. Although 540 (86.5%) respondents knew about preprints, only 183 (33.9%) had posted preprints before. In the open-ended section of the questionnaire survey, several comments were made about the cost burdens associated with open access and the difficulty of how academic preprints are handled. Although open access is widespread, and recognition of preprints is increasing, some issues remain that need to be addressed. Academic and institutional support, and transformative agreement may help reduce the cost burden. Guidelines for handling preprints in academia are also important for responding to changes in the research environment.

A Pandemic-Accelerated Shift to Openness: The Case of Scholarly Publishing

The need to understand and respond to the COVID-19 pandemic presented an enormous stress test for scientists and for scientific research. The need for rapid access to the latest COVID-19 research highlighted a number of longstanding shortcomings in scholarly publishing, most notably delayed publication of scientific findings and barriers to access for both readers and authors to fee-charging journals. During the global health crisis, innovations were made in scholarly publishing toward greater openness, such as accelerated peer review processes and increased use of preprints. However, different stakeholders across the scientific community will need to make a concerted effort to ensure that the openness fostered during the pandemic contributes to long-lasting change in scholarly publishing.

JS-CC: CONTROVERSIES IN ACADEMIA MINI-DEBATES

Organized by the ISH Communications Committee, this session will feature two mini-debates focused on emerging controversies in academic/biomedical research. Our first debate will focus on the role of social media in an academic career and how this should be assessed in performance reviews. Dr. Anastasia Mihailidou (Australia) will argue the Pro perspective and Dr. Erika Jones (South Africa) will argue the Con. The second debate will focus on the increasing use of pre-prints in dissemination of research. Dr. Dylan Burger (Canada) will argue the Pro perspective while Dr. Swapnil Hiremath (Canada) will argue the Con. The session will emphasize effective communication in discussing these controversies and will feature a TED-style format and a more relaxed atmosphere than conventional debates. It will also include members of the Communications Committee as Panel discussants

Preprints 101

SPEAKERS: Dr. David Riley, MD Editor Permanente Journal Dr. Clare Stone, PhD Medical Content Editor Social Science Research Network (SSRN) REPORTER: Ashley Ketelhut Managing Editor American Society of Clinical Oncology Dr. Riley provides insight into the benefits of preprints to inform clinical practice guidelines and the use of preprints for government-funded research. Dr. Stone explores the nature of preprints, how they have evolved, the importance of transparency, and the value preprints bring to scholarly literature. She also shares insight on the preprint services SSRN provides to researchers. During the COVID-19 pandemic in particular, there has been a need for rapid and frequent communication as new data has come to light. Preprints can help fill that gap and act as a valuable tool and resource to the larger community. This webinar highlights how preprints have transformed from being static pre-publication articles, to being dynamic documents that have been integrated directly into journals’ editorial workflows. With this collaboration, journals and preprint servers can provide authors with a more seamless process to getting their work published and disseminated. Preprints are mainstream and here to stay; watch the webinar to see how these platforms integrate into scholarly communication. This webinar would be of interest to those unfamiliar with preprints, or individuals working on journals who are looking to add preprints into their editorial workflow. The webinar recording is available for purchase at https://www.councilscienceeditors.org/resource-library/archive/past-webinars/webinar-preprints-101/

A guide to preprinting for early-career researchers.

ABSTRACTThe use of preprints, research manuscripts shared publicly before completing the traditional peer-review process, is becoming a more common practice among life science researchers. Early-career researchers (ECRs) benefit from posting preprints as they are shareable, citable, and prove productivity. However, preprinting a manuscript involves a discussion among all co-authors, and ECRs are often not the decision-makers. Therefore, ECRs may find themselves in situations where they are interested in depositing a preprint but are unsure how to approach their co-authors or advisor about preprinting. Leveraging our own experiences as ECRs, and feedback from the research community, we have constructed a guide for ECRs who are considering preprinting to enable them to take ownership over the process and to raise awareness about preprinting options. We hope that this guide helps ECRs to initiate conversations about preprinting with co-authors and encourage them to preprint their future research.

The Normalization of Preprints♦

The last few years have seen an explosive growth in the use of preprints and the associated preprint servers by large sections of the scientific community. This article addresses the history of the preprint, its advantages, and potential disadvantages, and concludes with some recommendations for how the growing acceptance of preprint posting should be handled within academia and the changes in cultural norms (in other words its normalization) that this entails. (Garisto, 2019).

Citation needed? Wikipedia bibliometrics during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic.

BackgroundWith the COVID-19 pandemic’s outbreak, millions flocked to Wikipedia for updated information. Amid growing concerns regarding an “infodemic,” ensuring the quality of information is a crucial vector of public health. Investigating whether and how Wikipedia remained up to date and in line with science is key to formulating strategies to counter misinformation. Using citation analyses, we asked which sources informed Wikipedia’s COVID-19–related articles before and during the pandemic’s first wave (January–May 2020).ResultsWe found that coronavirus-related articles referenced trusted media outlets and high-quality academic sources. Regarding academic sources, Wikipedia was found to be highly selective in terms of what science was cited. Moreover, despite a surge in COVID-19 preprints, Wikipedia had a clear preference for open-access studies published in respected journals and made little use of preprints. Building a timeline of English-language COVID-19 articles from 2001–2020 revealed a nuanced trade-off between quality and timeliness. It further showed how pre-existing articles on key topics related to the virus created a framework for integrating new knowledge. Supported by a rigid sourcing policy, this “scientific infrastructure” facilitated contextualization and regulated the influx of new information. Last, we constructed a network of DOI-Wikipedia articles, which showed the landscape of pandemic-related knowledge on Wikipedia and how academic citations create a web of shared knowledge supporting topics like COVID-19 drug development.ConclusionsUnderstanding how scientific research interacts with the digital knowledge-sphere during the pandemic provides insight into how Wikipedia can facilitate access to science. It also reveals how, aided by what we term its “citizen encyclopedists,” it successfully fended off COVID-19 disinformation and how this unique model may be deployed in other contexts.

Personal observations on COVID-19 and the conduct and application of biomedical science.

We begin by describing our observations of the ways in which the conduct of research has changed during the COVID-19 pandemic and go on to comment on the quality of the scientific advice that is provided to UK citizens, and especially to schools. Researchers, like many, have suffered from the effects of the pandemic. Those hardships notwithstanding, we suggest that research into COVID-19 has benefitted from a ‘seed corn’ of discovery science that has provided the basis for routine diagnostic PCR and antibody tests; for structural analyses of the way in which the SARS-CoV-2 virus interacts with cells; for the development of new treatments (and the debunking of ineffective ones); for studies of the genetics of susceptibility to SARS-CoV-2; and for the development of vaccines. The speed of dissemination of research has benefitted from the widespread use of pre-prints, and researchers and funders have become more nimble in their approaches to research and more willing to change their priorities in the face of the pandemic. In our experience, the advice provided to schools on the basis of this research was, however, often published at the last minute and was frequently flawed or inconsistent. This has led to a widening of the attainment gap between children from disadvantaged backgrounds and their peers and it has exacerbated the digital divide and holiday hunger. The consequences will be felt for many years to come and will jeopardize diversity in research and other careers.

Preprint as a type of scientific publication

The essence of the concept of a preprint is revealed and the main provisions of publication ethics in relation to a preprint are described, the specifics of the use of preprints in scientific communication are investigated. The capabilities of platforms for posting preprints and the changes that occur to them in the context of the COVID 19 pandemic are analyzed.

Overlay Journals, Overlay Reviews: Has Their Time Finally Come?

MODERATOR: Heather R Staines Independent Consultant Trumbull, Connecticut SPEAKERS: Hannah Drury Product Manager eLife/Sciety Peterborough, United Kingdom Samantha Hindle Content Manager bioRxiv and medRxiv Cofounder PREreview Stefano M Bertozzi Dean Emeritus and Professor of Health Policy and Management UC Berkeley School of Public Health Gunther Eysenbach CEO and Executive Editor JMIR Publications Toronto, Ontario, Canada REPORTER: Tony Alves Hopedale, Massachusetts The session “Overlay Journals, Overlay Reviews: Has Their Time Finally Come?” was held virtually on May 4, 2021. Moderated by Heather Staines, Senior Consultant at Delta Think, the session featured presentations by Stefano M Bertozzi, Dean Emeritus and Professor of Public Health Policy and Management at UC Berkeley; Gunther Eysenbach, CEO and Executive Editor, JMIR Publications; Samantha Hindle, Content Manager of bioRxiv and medRxiv and Co-founder of PREreview; and Hannah Drury, Product Manager of Sciety at eLife. COVID-19 has accelerated the use of preprints, and researchers and media are increasingly turning to preprint servers to get an early glimpse at new studies. Preprint servers have come under increased scrutiny, and many have risen to the challenge by implementing various forms of peer review. Another interesting and related phenomenon is the increase in “overlay journals,” which use “overlay reviews” to help validate the science in preprints, thus increasing trust and transparency in preprints. If you are unfamiliar with the concept of overlay journals, they are a type of online, open access compilation of preprints, public domain publications, and already-published open access articles. Sometimes the compilations are thematic, addressing specific topics, and […]