1
|
Blatch-Jones AJ, Recio Saucedo A, Giddins B. The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review. PLoS One 2023; 18:e0291627. [PMID: 37713422 PMCID: PMC10503772 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291627] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/27/2023] [Accepted: 09/04/2023] [Indexed: 09/17/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Preprints are open and accessible scientific manuscript or report that is shared publicly, through a preprint server, before being submitted to a journal. The value and importance of preprints has grown since its contribution during the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders and publishers are establishing their position on the use of preprints, in grant applications and publishing models. However, the evidence supporting the use and acceptability of preprints varies across funders, publishers, and researchers. The scoping review explored the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research lifecycle. METHODS A scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017-2022) to capture changes influenced by COVID-19 (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature, and two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science (24 August 2022). RESULTS 379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publications, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility, and validation). For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities). CONCLUSIONS Preprints provide opportunities for rapid dissemination but there is a need for clear policies and guidance from journals, publishers, and funders. Cautionary measures are needed to maintain the quality and value of preprints, paying particular attention to how findings are translated to the public. More research is needed to address some of the uncertainties addressed in this review.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amanda Jane Blatch-Jones
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Coordinating Centre, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom
| | - Alejandra Recio Saucedo
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Coordinating Centre, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom
| | - Beth Giddins
- National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Coordinating Centre, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Should preprints and peer-reviewed papers be assigned equal status? J Visc Surg 2022; 159:444-445. [PMID: 36115796 DOI: 10.1016/j.jviscsurg.2022.08.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/24/2022]
|
3
|
Teixeira da Silva JA. A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges. JOURNAL FOR GENERAL PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE = ZEITSCHRIFT FUR ALLGEMEINE WISSENSCHAFTSTHEORIE 2022; 53:583-599. [PMID: 35669840 PMCID: PMC9159037 DOI: 10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 10] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 07/02/2021] [Revised: 11/14/2021] [Accepted: 02/12/2022] [Indexed: 06/15/2023]
Abstract
Academic publishing is undergoing a highly transformative process, and many established rules and value systems that are in place, such as traditional peer review (TPR) and preprints, are facing unprecedented challenges, including as a result of post-publication peer review. The integrity and validity of the academic literature continue to rely naively on blind trust, while TPR and preprints continue to fail to effectively screen out errors, fraud, and misconduct. Imperfect TPR invariably results in imperfect papers that have passed through varying levels of rigor of screening and validation. If errors or misconduct were not detected during TPR's editorial screening, but are detected at the post-publication stage, an opportunity is created to correct the academic record. Currently, the most common forms of correcting the academic literature are errata, corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions or withdrawals. Some additional measures to correct the literature have emerged, including manuscript versioning, amendments, partial retractions and retract and replace. Preprints can also be corrected if their version is updated. This paper discusses the risks, benefits and limitations of these forms of correcting the academic literature. Supplementary Information The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s10838-022-09607-4.
Collapse
|
4
|
Grant S, Wendt KE, Leadbeater BJ, Supplee LH, Mayo-Wilson E, Gardner F, Bradshaw CP. Transparent, Open, and Reproducible Prevention Science. PREVENTION SCIENCE : THE OFFICIAL JOURNAL OF THE SOCIETY FOR PREVENTION RESEARCH 2022; 23:701-722. [PMID: 35175501 PMCID: PMC9283153 DOI: 10.1007/s11121-022-01336-w] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 6.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 01/05/2022] [Indexed: 01/20/2023]
Abstract
The field of prevention science aims to understand societal problems, identify effective interventions, and translate scientific evidence into policy and practice. There is growing interest among prevention scientists in the potential for transparency, openness, and reproducibility to facilitate this mission by providing opportunities to align scientific practice with scientific ideals, accelerate scientific discovery, and broaden access to scientific knowledge. The overarching goal of this manuscript is to serve as a primer introducing and providing an overview of open science for prevention researchers. In this paper, we discuss factors motivating interest in transparency and reproducibility, research practices associated with open science, and stakeholders engaged in and impacted by open science reform efforts. In addition, we discuss how and why different types of prevention research could incorporate open science practices, as well as ways that prevention science tools and methods could be leveraged to advance the wider open science movement. To promote further discussion, we conclude with potential reservations and challenges for the field of prevention science to address as it transitions to greater transparency, openness, and reproducibility. Throughout, we identify activities that aim to strengthen the reliability and efficiency of prevention science, facilitate access to its products and outputs, and promote collaborative and inclusive participation in research activities. By embracing principles of transparency, openness, and reproducibility, prevention science can better achieve its mission to advance evidence-based solutions to promote individual and collective well-being.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Sean Grant
- Department of Social & Behavioral Sciences, Fairbanks School of Public Health, Indiana University Richard M, 1050 Wishard Blvd, Indianapolis, IN, 46202, USA.
| | - Kathleen E Wendt
- Department of Human Development and Family Studies, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO, USA
| | | | | | - Evan Mayo-Wilson
- Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Indiana University School of Public Health-Bloomington, Bloomington, IN, USA
| | - Frances Gardner
- Department of Social Policy and Intervention, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
| | - Catherine P Bradshaw
- School of Education & Human Development, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA, USA
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Baždarić K, Vrkić I, Arh E, Mavrinac M, Gligora Marković M, Bilić-Zulle L, Stojanovski J, Malički M. Attitudes and practices of open data, preprinting, and peer-review-A cross sectional study on Croatian scientists. PLoS One 2021; 16:e0244529. [PMID: 34153041 PMCID: PMC8216536 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0244529] [Citation(s) in RCA: 7] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/16/2020] [Accepted: 05/10/2021] [Indexed: 11/30/2022] Open
Abstract
Attitudes towards open peer review, open data and use of preprints influence scientists’ engagement with those practices. Yet there is a lack of validated questionnaires that measure these attitudes. The goal of our study was to construct and validate such a questionnaire and use it to assess attitudes of Croatian scientists. We first developed a 21-item questionnaire called Attitudes towards Open data sharing, preprinting, and peer-review (ATOPP), which had a reliable four-factor structure, and measured attitudes towards open data, preprint servers, open peer-review and open peer-review in small scientific communities. We then used the ATOPP to explore attitudes of Croatian scientists (n = 541) towards these topics, and to assess the association of their attitudes with their open science practices and demographic information. Overall, Croatian scientists’ attitudes towards these topics were generally neutral, with a median (Md) score of 3.3 out of max 5 on the scale score. We also found no gender (P = 0.995) or field differences (P = 0.523) in their attitudes. However, attitudes of scientist who previously engaged in open peer-review or preprinting were higher than of scientists that did not (Md 3.5 vs. 3.3, P<0.001, and Md 3.6 vs 3.3, P<0.001, respectively). Further research is needed to determine optimal ways of increasing scientists’ attitudes and their open science practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Ksenija Baždarić
- Department of Medical Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
- * E-mail:
| | - Iva Vrkić
- Department of Geophysics, Faculty of Science, University of Zagreb, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Evgenia Arh
- Library, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
| | - Martina Mavrinac
- Department of Medical Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
| | - Maja Gligora Marković
- Department of Medical Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
| | - Lidija Bilić-Zulle
- Department of Medical Informatics, Faculty of Medicine, University of Rijeka, Rijeka, Croatia
| | - Jadranka Stojanovski
- Department of Information Sciences, University of Zadar, Zadar, Croatia
- Centre for Scientific Information, The Ruđer Bošković Institute, Zagreb, Croatia
| | - Mario Malički
- Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS), Stanford University, Stanford, California, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Higgins J, Steiner RD. Author preprint behaviour and
non‐compliance
with journal preprint policies: One biomedical journal's experience. LEARNED PUBLISHING 2021. [DOI: 10.1002/leap.1376] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/09/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Jan Higgins
- American College of Medical Genetics and Genomics Bethesda Maryland USA
| | - Robert D. Steiner
- Marshfield Clinic Health System Marshfield Wisconsin USA
- University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health Madison Wisconsin USA
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Teixeira da Silva JA. Silently withdrawn or retracted preprints related to Covid-19 are a scholarly threat and a potential public health risk: theoretical arguments and suggested recommendations. ONLINE INFORMATION REVIEW 2020. [DOI: 10.1108/oir-08-2020-0371] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/17/2022]
Abstract
PurposeThousands of preprints related to Covid-19 have effused into the academic literature. Even though these are not peer-reviewed documents and have not been vetted by medical or other experts, several have been cited, while others have been widely promoted by the media. While many preprints eventually find their way into the published literature, usually through integrated publishing streams, there is a small body of preprints that have been opaquely withdrawn/retracted, without suitable reasons, leaving only a vestigial or skeletal record online. Others have, quite literally, vanished. This paper aims to examine some of those cases.Design/methodology/approachFor peer-reviewed literature, a retracted academic paper is usually water-marked with “RETRACTED” across each page of the document, as recommended by ethical bodies such as the Committee on Publication Ethics, which represents thousands of journals and publishers. Curiously, even though pro-preprint groups claim that preprints are an integral part of the publication process and a scholarly instrument, there are no strict, detailed or established ethical guidelines for preprints on most preprint servers. This paper identifies select withdrawn/retracted preprints and emphasizes that the opaque removal of preprints from the scholarly record may constitute unscholarly, possibly even predatory or unethical, behavior.FindingsStrict ethical guidelines are urgently needed for preprints, and preprint authors, in the case of misconduct, should face the same procedure and consequences as standard peer-reviewed academic literature.Originality/valueJournals and publishers that have silently retracted or withdrawn preprints should reinstate them, as for regular retracted literature, except for highly exceptional cases.
Collapse
|
8
|
Klebel T, Reichmann S, Polka J, McDowell G, Penfold N, Hindle S, Ross-Hellauer T. Peer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals. PLoS One 2020; 15:e0239518. [PMID: 33085678 PMCID: PMC7577440 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239518] [Citation(s) in RCA: 18] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/09/2020] [Accepted: 09/09/2020] [Indexed: 12/04/2022] Open
Abstract
Clear and findable publishing policies are important for authors to choose appropriate journals for publication. We investigated the clarity of policies of 171 major academic journals across disciplines regarding peer review and preprinting. 31.6% of journals surveyed do not provide information on the type of peer review they use. Information on whether preprints can be posted or not is unclear in 39.2% of journals. 58.5% of journals offer no clear information on whether reviewer identities are revealed to authors. Around 75% of journals have no clear policy on co-reviewing, citation of preprints, and publication of reviewer identities. Information regarding practices of open peer review is even more scarce, with <20% of journals providing clear information. Having found a lack of clear information, we conclude by examining the implications this has for researchers (especially early career) and the spread of open research practices.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Stefan Reichmann
- Institute of Interactive Systems and Data Science, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria
| | - Jessica Polka
- ASAPbio, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| | - Gary McDowell
- Lightoller LLC, Chicago, Illinois, United States of America
| | - Naomi Penfold
- eLife Sciences Publications Ltd, Cambridge, Cambridgeshire, United Kingdom
| | - Samantha Hindle
- Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, bioRxiv, Cold Spring Harbor, New York, United States of America
| | - Tony Ross-Hellauer
- Institute of Interactive Systems and Data Science, Graz University of Technology, Graz, Austria
- * E-mail:
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Letter to the Editor: Editorial: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, The Bone & Joint Journal, The Journal of Orthopaedic Research, and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Will Not Accept Clinical Research Manuscripts Previously Posted to Preprint Servers. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2020; 478:2186-2187. [PMID: 32657809 PMCID: PMC7431228 DOI: 10.1097/corr.0000000000001384] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 01/31/2023]
|
10
|
Poremski D, Falissard B, Fegert J, Witt A, Ordóñez AE, Martin A, Fung DSS. Moving from 'personal communication' to 'available online at': preprint servers enhance the timeliness of scientific exchange. Child Adolesc Psychiatry Ment Health 2019; 13:42. [PMID: 31695746 PMCID: PMC6823936 DOI: 10.1186/s13034-019-0301-4] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/01/2019] [Accepted: 10/04/2019] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Daniel Poremski
- 0000 0004 0469 9592grid.414752.1Health Intelligence Unit, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore
| | - Bruno Falissard
- 0000 0001 2175 4109grid.50550.35CESP INSERM U1018, Université Paris-Saclay, AP-HP, Paris, France
| | - Jörg Fegert
- 0000 0004 1936 9748grid.6582.9Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Andreas Witt
- 0000 0004 1936 9748grid.6582.9Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry and Psychotherapy, University of Ulm, Ulm, Germany
| | - Anna E. Ordóñez
- 0000 0004 0464 0574grid.416868.5Office of Clinical Research, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, MD USA
| | - Andrés Martin
- 0000000419368710grid.47100.32Child Study Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT USA
| | - Daniel Shuen Sheng Fung
- 0000 0004 0469 9592grid.414752.1Health Intelligence Unit, Institute of Mental Health, Singapore, Singapore ,0000 0001 2180 6431grid.4280.eYong Loo Lin School of Medicine and DUKE NUS Medical School, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore ,0000 0001 2224 0361grid.59025.3bLee Kong Chian School of Medicine, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore, Singapore
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Effects of journal choice on the visibility of scientific publications: a comparison between subscription-based and full Open Access models. Scientometrics 2019. [DOI: 10.1007/s11192-019-03265-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 12] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/26/2022]
|
12
|
Chiarelli A, Johnson R, Pinfield S, Richens E. Preprints and Scholarly Communication: Adoption, Practices, Drivers and Barriers. F1000Res 2019; 8:971. [PMID: 32055396 PMCID: PMC6961415 DOI: 10.12688/f1000research.19619.2] [Citation(s) in RCA: 20] [Impact Index Per Article: 4.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 06/11/2019] [Indexed: 11/20/2022] Open
Abstract
Background: Since 2013, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of preprint servers available online. To date, little is known about the position of researchers, funders, research performing organisations and other stakeholders with respect to this fast-paced landscape. In this article, we explore the benefits and challenges of preprint posting, along with issues such as infrastructure and financial sustainability. We also discuss the definition of a 'preprint' in different communities, and the impact this has on further uptake. Methods: This study is based on 38 detailed semi-structured interviews of key stakeholders based on a purposive heterogeneous sampling approach. Interviews were undertaken between October 2018 and January 2019. These were recorded, transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis to identify trends. Interview questions were designed based on Innovation Diffusion Theory, which is also used to interpret the results of this study. Results: Our study is the first using empirical data to understand the new wave of preprint servers and found that early and fast dissemination is the most appealing feature of the practice. The main concerns are related to the lack of quality assurance and the 'Ingelfinger rule'. We identified trust as an essential enabler of preprint posting and stress the enabling role of Twitter in showcasing preprints and enabling comments on these. Conclusions: The preprints landscape is evolving fast and disciplinary communities are at different stages in the innovation diffusion process. The landscape is characterised by significant experimentation, which leads to the conclusion that a one-size-fits-all approach to preprints is not feasible. Cooperation and active engagement between the stakeholders involved will play an important role in the future. In our paper, we share questions for the further development of the preprints landscape, with the most important being whether preprint posting will develop as a publisher- or researcher-centric practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Rob Johnson
- Research Consulting Limited, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, UK
| | - Stephen Pinfield
- Information School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DP, UK
| | - Emma Richens
- Research Consulting Limited, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, UK
| |
Collapse
|