Preprints: Facilitating early discovery, access, and feedback

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

PURPOSE

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.

METHOD

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.

RESULTS

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.

CONCLUSIONS

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.

Preprints in Health Professions Education: Raising Awareness and Shifting Culture

A preprint is a version of a research manuscript posted by its authors to a preprint server before peer review. Preprints are associated with a variety of benefits, including the ability to rapidly communicate research, the opportunity for researchers to receive feedback and raise awareness of their research, and broad and unrestricted access. For early-career researchers, preprints also provide a mechanism for demonstrating research progress and productivity without the lengthy timelines of traditional journal publishing. Despite these benefits, few health professions education (HPE) research articles are deposited as preprints, suggesting that preprinting is not currently integrated into HPE culture. In this article, the authors describe preprints, their benefits and related risks, and the potential barriers that hamper their widespread use within HPE. In particular, the authors propose the barriers of discordant messaging and the lack of formal and informal education on how to deposit, critically appraise, and use preprints. To mitigate these barriers, several recommendations are proposed to facilitate preprints in becoming an accepted and encouraged component of HPE culture, allowing the field to take full advantage of this evolving form of research dissemination.

A guide to preprinting for early-career researchers

The 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.

Summary: Are you an early-career researcher considering preprinting, but unsure how to approach conversations about the possibility? Here, we discuss preprinting and provide tips to enable you to take ownership over the process.

Need for universal acceptance of preprinting by editors of journals of health professional education

None

"Can you recommend a journal for my paper?"

None

Supporting open, collaborative, evidence-based scholarship: considering the future of perspectives on medical education

None

Preprinting is positively associated with early career researcher status in ecology and evolution

The usage of preprint servers in ecology and evolution is increasing, allowing research to be rapidly disseminated and available through open access at no cost. Early Career Researchers (ECRs) often have limited experience with the peer review process, which can be challenging when trying to build publication records and demonstrate research ability for funding opportunities, scholarships, grants, or faculty positions. ECRs face different challenges relative to researchers with permanent positions and established research programs. These challenges might also vary according to institution size and country, which are factors associated with the availability of funding for open access journals. We predicted that the career stage and institution size impact the relative usage of preprint servers among researchers in ecology and evolution. Using data collected from 500 articles (100 from each of two open access journals, two closed access journals, and a preprint server), we showed that ECRs generated more preprints relative to non-ECRs, for both first and last authors. We speculate that this pattern is reflective of the advantages of quick and open access research that is disproportionately beneficial to ECRs. There is also a marginal association between first author, institution size, and preprint usage, whereby the number of preprints tends to increase with institution size for ECRs. The United States and United Kingdom contributed the greatest number of preprints by ECRs, whereas non-Western countries contributed relatively fewer preprints. This empirical evidence that preprint usage varies with the career stage, institution size, and country helps to identify barriers surrounding large-scale adoption of preprinting in ecology and evolution.

Publishing in pandemic times: A bibliometric analysis of early medical publications on Kawasaki-like disease (MIS-C, PIMS-TS) related to SARS-CoV-2

INTRODUCTION

At the end of April 2020, three European pediatric societies published an alert on a new hyperinflammatory disorder linked to SARS-CoV-2. This disease has alternatively been called Kawasaki-like disease, pediatric inflammatory multisystem syndrome temporally associated with SARS-CoV-2 infection (PIMS-TS), and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children (MIS-C). These alerts provide a clear starting point from which to study the early response of the medical and scientific community to a new disease in terms of scientific publications, and to compare the timeline of this response with levels of general public interest. To this aim, we conducted a bibliometric analysis of articles on this disease published between 1 April and 5 July 2020.

METHOD

A literature search was performed using PubMed and in three preprint repositories. For each article, the name used for the disease in the title, the number of authors, the number of patients, the citations according to Google Scholar, the journal impact factor, and the Altmetric score were retrieved. Google search trends for the terms "Kawasaki" and "COVID," "COVID-19," and "coronavirus" were also retrieved, as was the number of Reuters news articles published on the topic. These data were compared longitudinally on a weekly basis. The quality of the reporting of the study was evaluated using the STROBE guidelines for observational studies with more than three patients and using the CARE guidelines for case reports of three or fewer patients.

RESULTS

Eighty-six articles were included, among which ten were preprints (three of which were subsequently published) and 49 were clinical articles (57%). A total of 857 patients were described. The median number of authors per article was five (range, 1-45), the median number of patients was four (1-186), the median number of citations was one (0-170), the median Altmetric score was 12 (0-7242), and the median journal impact factor was 3.7 (1-74.7). For the clinical articles, the median percentage of STROBE or CARE checklist items satisfied was 70% (IQR, 56.75-79.25; range, 40-90). Guideline adherence was significantly higher for observational studies than for case reports (median percentage of checklist items satisfied, 78.5% vs 61.5%; P<0.001); however, guideline adherence did not differ significantly between peer-reviewed and preprint articles (median percentage of checklist items satisfied, 57% vs 72%; P=0.205). The only statistically significant difference between clinical articles and other types of articles was the number of authors (median, 7 vs 2; P=2.53E-9). Fifty-seven of the 86 articles were authored by researchers from just three countries (the USA, 31; France, 14; and the UK, 12). The names most frequently used in the title were Kawasaki-like disease (n=37), followed by MIS-C (n=27), PIM-TS (n=14), and other names involving the term "inflammatory" (n=12). Google searches for related terms peaked between weeks 18 and 21, following the initial alerts and decreased rapidly thereafter. The number of Reuters articles on the subject was correlated with Google search trends (ρ: 0.86, 95% CI [0.59; 0.96]; P=0.00016), but the number of medical articles published was not (ρ: -0.54, 95% CI [-0.87; 0.14]; P=0.11). The first small case series was published less than 2 weeks after the initial alert; however, if all articles had been deposited as preprints when they were submitted to journals, the cumulative number of reported cases would have been 300% higher in week 18 (3 vs 1), 400% higher in week 19 (44 vs 11), 70% higher in week 20 (124 vs 73), and 54% higher in week 21 (129 vs 84).

CONCLUSION

In a period of 9 weeks after the initial alerts from European pediatric societies, 85 medical articles were published, involving 856 patients (one case report was published before the alerts), allowing rapid dissemination of research information. However, general public interest followed the news cycle rather than scientific releases. The quality of the reporting, as assessed by adherence to STROBE or CARE guidelines, was adequate with more than two-thirds of checklist items satisfied. Learned societies play an important role in the early dissemination of up-to-date peer-reviewed information. Preprint deposition should be encouraged to accelerate the dissemination of research information.

AR. Perspectives on Medical Education Meta-Research Special Issue: A call for papers exploring how research is performed, communicated, verified and rewarded

None

Correction to: perspectives on medical education meta-research special issue: a call for papers exploring how research is performed, communicated, verified and rewarded

A Correction to this paper has been published: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-020-00627-8

The collective wisdom in the COVID-19 research: Comparison and synthesis of epidemiological parameter estimates in preprints and peer-reviewed articles

OBJECTIVES

We aimed to explore the collective wisdom of preprints related to COVID-19 by comparing and synthesizing them with results of peer-reviewed publications.

METHODS

PubMed, Google Scholar, medRxiv, bioRxiv, arXiv, and SSRN were searched for papers regarding the estimation of four epidemiological parameters of COVID-19: the basic reproduction number, incubation period, infectious period, and case-fatality-rate. Distributions of parameters and timeliness of preprints and peer-reviewed papers were compared. Four parameters in two groups were synthesized by bootstrapping, and their validities were evaluated by simulated cumulative cases of the susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered-dead-cumulative (SEIRDC) model.

RESULTS

A total of 106 papers were included for analysis. The distributions of four parameters in two literature groups were close, and the timeliness of preprints was better. Synthesized estimates of the basic reproduction number (3.18, 95% CI 2.85-3.53), incubation period (5.44 days, 95% CI 4.98-5.99), infectious period (6.25 days, 95% CI 5.09-7.51), and case-fatality-rate (4.51%, 95% CI 3.41%-6.29%) were obtained. Simulated cumulative cases of the SEIRDC model matched well with the onset cases in China.

CONCLUSIONS

The validity of the COVID-19 parameter estimations of the preprints was on par with that of peer-reviewed publications, and synthesized results of literatures could reduce the uncertainty and be used for epidemic decision-making.

When will I get my paper back? A replication study of publication timelines for health professions education research

INTRODUCTION

Biomedical researchers have lamented the lengthy timelines from manuscript submission to publication and highlighted potential detrimental effects on scientific progress and scientists' careers. In 2015, Himmelstein identified the mean time from manuscript submission to acceptance in biomedicine as approximately 100 days. The length of publication timelines in health professions education (HPE) is currently unknown.

METHODS

This study replicates Himmelstein's work with a sample of 14 HPE journals published between 2008-2018. Using PubMed, 19,182 article citations were retrieved. Open metadata for each were downloaded, including the date the article was received by the journal, date the authors resubmitted revisions, date the journal accepted the article, and date of entry into PubMed. Journals without publication history metadata were excluded.

RESULTS

Publication history data were available for 55% (n = 8) of the journals sampled. The publication histories of 4,735 (25%) articles were analyzed. Mean time from: (1) author submission to journal acceptance was 180.93 days (SD = 103.89), (2) author submission to posting on PubMed was 263.55 days (SD = 157.61), and (3) journal acceptance to posting on PubMed was 83.15 days (SD = 135.72).

DISCUSSION

This study presents publication metadata for journals that openly provide it-a first step towards understanding publication timelines in HPE. Findings confirm the replicability of the original study, and the limited data suggest that, in comparison to biomedical scientists broadly, medical educators may experience longer wait times for article acceptance and publication. Reasons for these delays are currently unknown and deserve further study; such work would be facilitated by increased public access to journal metadata.

The relationship between bioRxiv preprints, citations and altmetrics

A potential motivation for scientists to deposit their scientific work as preprints is to enhance its citation or social impact. In this study we assessed the citation and altmetric advantage of bioRxiv, a preprint server for the biological sciences. We retrieved metadata of all bioRxiv preprints deposited between November 2013 and December 2017, and matched them to articles that were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. Citation data from Scopus and altmetric data from Altmetric.com were used to compare citation and online sharing behavior of bioRxiv preprints, their related journal articles, and nondeposited articles published in the same journals. We found that bioRxiv-deposited journal articles had sizably higher citation and altmetric counts compared to nondeposited articles. Regression analysis reveals that this advantage is not explained by multiple explanatory variables related to the articles’ publication venues and authorship. Further research will be required to establish whether such an effect is causal in nature. bioRxiv preprints themselves are being directly cited in journal articles, regardless of whether the preprint has subsequently been published in a journal. bioRxiv preprints are also shared widely on Twitter and in blogs, but remain relatively scarce in mainstream media and Wikipedia articles, in comparison to peer-reviewed journal articles.