1
|
Post a preprint of your next research paper. Nat Hum Behav 2023; 7:2039. [PMID: 38114714 DOI: 10.1038/s41562-023-01797-1] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/21/2023]
|
2
|
Alfonso F, Crea F. Preprints: a game changer in scientific publications? Eur Heart J 2023; 44:171-173. [PMID: 36420647 DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehac665] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/25/2022] Open
Affiliation(s)
- Fernando Alfonso
- Department of Cardiology, Hospital Universitario de La Princesa, Instituto de Investigación Sanitaria Princesa (IIS-IP), Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, CIBER-CV, C/Diego de León 62, Spain
| | - Filippo Crea
- Department of Cardiovascular Medicine, Fondazione Policlinico Universitario A, Gemelli IRCCS, Rome, Italy.,Department of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Sciences, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Rome, Italy
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Fleerackers A, Moorhead LL, Maggio LA, Fagan K, Alperin JP. Science in motion: A qualitative analysis of journalists' use and perception of preprints. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0277769. [PMID: 36409723 PMCID: PMC9678308 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0277769] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/09/2022] [Accepted: 11/02/2022] [Indexed: 11/22/2022] Open
Abstract
This qualitative study explores how and why journalists use preprints-unreviewed research papers-in their reporting. Through thematic analysis of interviews conducted with 19 health and science journalists in the second year of the COVID-19 pandemic, it applies a theoretical framework that conceptualizes COVID-19 preprint research as a form of post-normal science, characterized by high scientific uncertainty and societal relevance, urgent need for political decision-making, and value-related policy considerations. Findings suggest that journalists approach the decision to cover preprints as a careful calculation, in which the potential public benefits and the ease of access preprints provided were weighed against risks of spreading misinformation. Journalists described viewing unreviewed studies with extra skepticism and relied on diverse strategies to find, vet, and report on them. Some of these strategies represent standard science journalism, while others, such as labeling unreviewed studies as preprints, mark a departure from the norm. However, journalists also reported barriers to covering preprints, as many felt they lacked the expertise or the time required to fully understand or vet the research. The findings suggest that coverage of preprints is likely to continue post-pandemic, with important implications for scientists, journalists, and the publics who read their work.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alice Fleerackers
- Interdisciplinary Studies, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
- * E-mail: (AF); (LLM)
| | - Laura L. Moorhead
- Journalism, College of Liberal and Creative Arts, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California, United States of America
- * E-mail: (AF); (LLM)
| | - Lauren A. Maggio
- Department of Medicine, Uniformed Services University, Bethesda, Maryland, United States of America
| | - Kaylee Fagan
- Journalism, College of Liberal and Creative Arts, San Francisco State University, San Francisco, California, United States of America
| | - Juan Pablo Alperin
- Publishing Program, Simon Fraser University, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Motivations, concerns and selection biases when posting preprints: A survey of bioRxiv authors. PLoS One 2022; 17:e0274441. [PMID: 36327267 PMCID: PMC9632780 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0274441] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2021] [Accepted: 08/29/2022] [Indexed: 11/06/2022] Open
Abstract
Since 2013, the usage of preprints as a means of sharing research in biology has rapidly grown, in particular via the preprint server bioRxiv. Recent studies have found that journal articles that were previously posted to bioRxiv received a higher number of citations or mentions/shares on other online platforms compared to articles in the same journals that were not posted. However, the exact causal mechanism for this effect has not been established, and may in part be related to authors' biases in the selection of articles that are chosen to be posted as preprints. We aimed to investigate this mechanism by conducting a mixed-methods survey of 1,444 authors of bioRxiv preprints, to investigate the reasons that they post or do not post certain articles as preprints, and to make comparisons between articles they choose to post and not post as preprints. We find that authors are most strongly motivated to post preprints to increase awareness of their work and increase the speed of its dissemination; conversely, the strongest reasons for not posting preprints centre around a lack of awareness of preprints and reluctance to publicly post work that has not undergone a peer review process. We additionally find evidence that authors do not consider quality, novelty or significance when posting or not posting research as preprints, however, authors retain an expectation that articles they post as preprints will receive more citations or be shared more widely online than articles not posted.
Collapse
|
5
|
Rao H, Che J, Yin C, Zhou Y, Ma Y, Tian R. How many authors does it take to publish a high profile or classic paper? Mol Biol Cell 2022; 33:pe6. [PMID: 36137240 DOI: 10.1091/mbc.e22-04-0140] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/11/2022] Open
Abstract
Although the process of publishing a scientific paper has gotten simpler, it is increasingly difficult to publish a paper in high profile journals. We have analyzed the publishing data in the cell biology field and found several alarming trends developing over the last two decades. There is an emerging divide between scientist-run journals and professional-run high profile journals. How did this happen? What should we do? The core issue is whether the current standard for high profile journals hurts rather than helps the scientific discovery process. In this regard, we suggest that the editors and scientists should direct their focus on the potential impact and rigor of the work instead of the "perfection" or "completeness" of the study.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Hai Rao
- Department of Biochemistry, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China
| | - Jun Che
- Department of Biochemistry, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China
| | - Changhui Yin
- Department of Biochemistry, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China
| | - Yunfan Zhou
- Department of Biochemistry, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China
| | - Yifang Ma
- Department of Statistics and Data Science, College of Science, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China
| | - Ruilin Tian
- Department of Medical Neuroscience, School of Medicine, Southern University of Science and Technology, Shenzhen, People's Republic of China
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Preprint citation practice in PLOS. Scientometrics 2022; 127:6895-6912. [PMID: 35702375 PMCID: PMC9186004 DOI: 10.1007/s11192-022-04388-5] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2021] [Accepted: 04/19/2022] [Indexed: 11/03/2022]
Abstract
AbstractThe role of preprints in the scientific production and their part in citations have been growing over the past 10 years. In this paper we study preprint citations in several different aspects: the progression of preprint citations over time, their relative frequencies in relation to the IMRaD structure of articles, their distributions over time, per preprint database and per PLOS journal. We have processed the PLOS corpus that covers 7 journals and a total of about 240,000 articles up to January 2021, and produced a dataset of 8460 preprint citation contexts that cite 12 different preprint databases. Our results show that preprint citations are found with the highest frequency in the Method section of articles, though small variations exist with respect to journals. The PLOS Computational Biology journal stands out as it contains more than three times more preprint citations than any other PLOS journal. The relative parts of the different preprint databases are also examined. While ArXiv and bioRxiv are the most frequent citation sources, bioRxiv’s disciplinary nature can be observed as it is the source of more than 70% of preprint citations in PLOS Biology, PLOS Genetics and PLOS Pathogens. We have also compared the lexical content of preprint citation contexts to the citation content to peer-reviewed publications. Finally, by performing a lexicometric analysis, we have shown that preprint citation contexts differ significantly from citation contexts of peer-reviewed publications. This confirms that authors make use of different lexical content when citing preprints compared to the rest of citations.
Collapse
|
7
|
Hunter ME, Dunne L, Thomas C, Miller L, Soper D. Ask the Editors: Assessing the Publishing Needs of Faculty Editors. JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND SCHOLARLY COMMUNICATION 2022. [DOI: 10.31274/jlsc.12912] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
Introduction: This article reports results from a survey of faculty members with editorial responsibilities. The survey explored what publishing services and platform functionalities respondents found most valuable in their work as editors, how satisfied they were with the services provided by commercial publishers, and to what extent they were aware of alternative publishing practices. Method: The authors used data collected from a survey instrument that was distributed to a sample (n = 515) of faculty members with editorial responsibilities at their institution. Results: Collected data suggest that faculty editors value specific publishing services (e.g., coordination of peer review and copyediting) and platform functionality (e.g., submission and peer-review management) more than others, recognize several challenges facing academic publishing in their disciplines (including the transition to open access publishing models), and are mostly aware of common forms of open access research dissemination such as open access journals and institutional repositories. Discussion: The survey results may be helpful to library publishers in making decisions about what publishing services and platform functionalities to prioritize in the development of their publishing programs. In addition to utilizing the survey data to assess the needs of editors, the authors also identified a number of expanded uses of the survey related to marketing and outreach. Conclusion: Insofar as faculty editors are key stakeholders that library publishers seek to build partnerships with, it is important to understand their needs and preferences as editors. This article provides some insight into these questions that may prove helpful to library publishers.
Collapse
|
8
|
Nicholson DN, Rubinetti V, Hu D, Thielk M, Hunter LE, Greene CS. Examining linguistic shifts between preprints and publications. PLoS Biol 2022; 20:e3001470. [PMID: 35104289 PMCID: PMC8806061 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001470] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/12/2021] [Accepted: 11/05/2021] [Indexed: 11/19/2022] Open
Abstract
Preprints allow researchers to make their findings available to the scientific community before they have undergone peer review. Studies on preprints within bioRxiv have been largely focused on article metadata and how often these preprints are downloaded, cited, published, and discussed online. A missing element that has yet to be examined is the language contained within the bioRxiv preprint repository. We sought to compare and contrast linguistic features within bioRxiv preprints to published biomedical text as a whole as this is an excellent opportunity to examine how peer review changes these documents. The most prevalent features that changed appear to be associated with typesetting and mentions of supporting information sections or additional files. In addition to text comparison, we created document embeddings derived from a preprint-trained word2vec model. We found that these embeddings are able to parse out different scientific approaches and concepts, link unannotated preprint-peer-reviewed article pairs, and identify journals that publish linguistically similar papers to a given preprint. We also used these embeddings to examine factors associated with the time elapsed between the posting of a first preprint and the appearance of a peer-reviewed publication. We found that preprints with more versions posted and more textual changes took longer to publish. Lastly, we constructed a web application (https://greenelab.github.io/preprint-similarity-search/) that allows users to identify which journals and articles that are most linguistically similar to a bioRxiv or medRxiv preprint as well as observe where the preprint would be positioned within a published article landscape.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- David N. Nicholson
- Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
| | - Vincent Rubinetti
- Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Center for Health AI, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America
| | - Dongbo Hu
- Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
| | - Marvin Thielk
- Elsevier, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
| | - Lawrence E. Hunter
- Center for Computational Pharmacology, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America
| | - Casey S. Greene
- Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics, Perelman School of Medicine University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of America
- Center for Health AI, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America
- Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Genetics, University of Colorado School of Medicine, Aurora, Colorado, United States of America
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Camargo Jr. KRD, Coeli CM. The challenge of preprints for public health. CAD SAUDE PUBLICA 2022; 38:e00168222. [DOI: 10.1590/0102-311xen168222] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/06/2022] [Accepted: 09/08/2022] [Indexed: 11/26/2022] Open
|
10
|
Smith JC, Goodhew DW. Personal observations on COVID-19 and the conduct and application of biomedical science. Interface Focus 2021; 11:20210053. [PMID: 34956604 PMCID: PMC8504890 DOI: 10.1098/rsfs.2021.0053] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Accepted: 09/14/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- J. C. Smith
- Developmental Biology Laboratory, The Francis Crick Institute, London NW1 1AT, UK
- Wellcome Trust, 215 Euston Road, London NW1 2BE, UK
| | | |
Collapse
|
11
|
Chaleplioglou A, Koulouris A. Preprint paper platforms in the academic scholarly communication environment. JOURNAL OF LIBRARIANSHIP AND INFORMATION SCIENCE 2021. [DOI: 10.1177/09610006211058908] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/24/2022]
Abstract
Academic scholarly communication is the predominant business of researchers, scientists, and scholars. It is the core element of promoting scientific thought, investigation, and building up solid knowledge. The development of preprint platform web interfaces, server repositories of electronic scholarly papers submitted by their authors and openly available to the scientific community proposed a new form of academic communication. The distribution of a preprint of a scientific manuscript allows the authors to claim the priority of discovery, in a manner similar to the conference proceedings output, but also creates an anteriority that prevents protection by a patent application. Herein, we review the scope and the role of preprint papers platforms in academia, we explore individual cases, arXiv, SSRN, OSF Preprints, HAL, bioRxiv, EconStor, RePEc, PhilArchive, Research Square, viXra, Cryptology ePrint Archive, Preprints.org, ChinaXiv, medRxiv, JMIR Preprints, Authorea, ChemRxiv, engrXiv, e-LiS, SciELO, PsyArXiv, F1000 Research, and Zenodo, and discuss their significance in promoting scientific discovery, the potential risks of scientific integrity, as well as the policies of data distribution and intellectual property rights, the plus and minus, for the stakeholders, authors, institutions, states, scientific journals, scientific community, and the public. In this review we explore the scope and policies of the existing preprint papers platforms in different academic research fields.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Artemis Chaleplioglou
- University of West Attica, Greece
- Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens, Greece
| | | |
Collapse
|
12
|
Wolf JF, MacKay L, Haworth SE, Cossette M, Dedato MN, Young KB, Elliott CI, Oomen RA. Preprinting is positively associated with early career researcher status in ecology and evolution. Ecol Evol 2021; 11:13624-13632. [PMID: 34707804 PMCID: PMC8525114 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.8106] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2021] [Revised: 08/08/2021] [Accepted: 08/24/2021] [Indexed: 01/29/2023] Open
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jesse F. Wolf
- Department of Environmental and Life SciencesTrent UniversityPeterboroughONCanada
| | - Layla MacKay
- Department of Forensic ScienceTrent UniversityPeterboroughONCanada
| | - Sarah E. Haworth
- Department of Environmental and Life SciencesTrent UniversityPeterboroughONCanada
| | | | - Morgan N. Dedato
- Department of Environmental and Life SciencesTrent UniversityPeterboroughONCanada
| | - Kiana B. Young
- Department of Environmental and Life SciencesTrent UniversityPeterboroughONCanada
| | - Colin I. Elliott
- Department of Forensic ScienceTrent UniversityPeterboroughONCanada
| | - Rebekah A. Oomen
- Department of BiosciencesCentre for Ecological and Evolutionary SynthesisUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
- Department of Natural SciencesCentre for Coastal ResearchUniversity of AgderKristiansandNorway
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Teixeira da Silva JA. Adjusting the use of preprints to accommodate the 'quality' factor in response to COVID-19. J Taibah Univ Med Sci 2021; 16:477-481. [PMID: 34408603 PMCID: PMC8348262 DOI: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2021.04.003] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 12/06/2020] [Revised: 04/06/2021] [Accepted: 04/08/2021] [Indexed: 11/28/2022] Open
Abstract
Preprints are typically crude precursors of peer-reviewed papers that are placed almost immediately, save for some superficial screening, on an open-access repository to allow the information to reach readers quickly, circumventing the long-drawn process typically associated with processing in peer-reviewed journals. For early-career researchers who might be enthusiastic about obtaining some recognition for their efforts, or wanting open and public input about their work, preprints are certainly a useful publication choice. However, if health-related data and information have not been carefully scrutinised, they may pose a risk and may even serve as a source of public health misinformation. Surging growth and competition among preprint servers, coupled with a massive volume of COVID-19-related preprints, mainly on bioRxiv and medRxiv, as well as select indexing now being tested on PubMed, suggests that preprints are being increasingly used in the biomedical sciences. Stronger and more robust ethical policies are needed to screen preprints before they are released to the public, and even if this implies a slight delay in publication, it may increase academics' trust in this form of scientific information and communication. Clear and stringent ethical policies need to be urgently introduced by ethics groups such as COPE and the ICMJE, whose many member journals allow preprints to be posted before traditional peer review. Stringent ethical guidelines that treat misconduct equally in preprints and peer-reviewed papers will boost the integrity of academic publishing.
Collapse
|
14
|
Neiman M, Bagley RK, Paczesniak D, Singh-Shepherd S. Development, implementation and impact of a new preprint solicitation process at Proceedings B. Proc Biol Sci 2021; 288:20211248. [PMID: 34256003 PMCID: PMC8277468 DOI: 10.1098/rspb.2021.1248] [Citation(s) in RCA: 3] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/12/2021] [Accepted: 06/23/2021] [Indexed: 11/12/2022] Open
Abstract
Preprints are manuscripts posted on a public server that do not yet have formal certification of peer review from a scholarly journal. The increasingly prominent online repositories for these preprints provide a means of rapidly making scientific results accessible to all with an Internet connection. We here describe the catalysis and subsequent development of a successful new process to solicit preprints for consideration for publication in Proceedings B. We present preliminary comparisons between the focal topics and geographic origin of submitting authors of papers submitted in the traditional (non-solicited) route versus solicited preprints. This analysis suggests that the solicitation process seems to be achieving one of the primary goals of the preprint solicitation endeavour: broadening the scope of the papers featured in Proceedings B. We also use an informal survey of the early-career scientists that are or have been involved with the Preprint Editorial Team to find that these scientists view their participation positively with respect to career development and knowledge in their field. The inclusion of early-career researchers from across the world in the preprint solicitation process could also translate into social justice benefits by providing a career-building opportunity and a window into the publishing process for young scientists.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Maurine Neiman
- Department of Biology, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
- Department of Gender, Women's, and Sexuality Studies, University of Iowa, Iowa City, IA 52242, USA
| | - Robin K. Bagley
- Department of Evolution, Ecology, and Organismal Biology, The Ohio State University at Lima, Lima, OH 45804, USA
| | - Dorota Paczesniak
- Department of Ecology and Genetics, University of Oulu, Oulu 90014, Finland
| | | |
Collapse
|
15
|
|
16
|
Fraser N, Brierley L, Dey G, Polka JK, Pálfy M, Nanni F, Coates JA. The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape. PLoS Biol 2021; 19:e3000959. [PMID: 33798194 PMCID: PMC8046348 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959] [Citation(s) in RCA: 150] [Impact Index Per Article: 50.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/08/2020] [Revised: 04/14/2021] [Accepted: 03/08/2021] [Indexed: 01/02/2023] Open
Abstract
The world continues to face a life-threatening viral pandemic. The virus underlying the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused over 98 million confirmed cases and 2.2 million deaths since January 2020. Although the most recent respiratory viral pandemic swept the globe only a decade ago, the way science operates and responds to current events has experienced a cultural shift in the interim. The scientific community has responded rapidly to the COVID-19 pandemic, releasing over 125,000 COVID-19-related scientific articles within 10 months of the first confirmed case, of which more than 30,000 were hosted by preprint servers. We focused our analysis on bioRxiv and medRxiv, 2 growing preprint servers for biomedical research, investigating the attributes of COVID-19 preprints, their access and usage rates, as well as characteristics of their propagation on online platforms. Our data provide evidence for increased scientific and public engagement with preprints related to COVID-19 (COVID-19 preprints are accessed more, cited more, and shared more on various online platforms than non-COVID-19 preprints), as well as changes in the use of preprints by journalists and policymakers. We also find evidence for changes in preprinting and publishing behaviour: COVID-19 preprints are shorter and reviewed faster. Our results highlight the unprecedented role of preprints and preprint servers in the dissemination of COVID-19 science and the impact of the pandemic on the scientific communication landscape.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Liam Brierley
- Department of Health Data Science, University of Liverpool, Liverpool, United Kingdom
| | - Gautam Dey
- MRC Lab for Molecular Cell Biology, UCL, London, United Kingdom
- Cell Biology and Biophysics Unit, European Molecular Biology Laboratory, Heidelberg, Germany
| | | | - Máté Pálfy
- The Company of Biologists, Cambridge, United Kingdom
| | | | - Jonathon Alexis Coates
- Hughes Hall College, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom
- William Harvey Research Institute, Charterhouse Square Barts and the London School of Medicine and Dentistry Queen Mary University of London, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
17
|
Vlasschaert C, Giles C, Hiremath S, Lanktree MB. Preprint Servers in Kidney Disease Research: A Rapid Review. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol 2021; 16:479-486. [PMID: 32680914 PMCID: PMC8011003 DOI: 10.2215/cjn.03800320] [Citation(s) in RCA: 6] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 02/04/2023]
Abstract
Preprint servers, such as arXiv and bioRxiv, have disrupted the scientific communication landscape by providing rapid access to research before peer review. medRxiv was launched as a free online repository for preprints in the medical, clinical, and related health sciences in 2019. In this review, we present the uptake of preprint server use in nephrology and discuss specific considerations regarding preprint server use in medicine. Distribution of kidney-related research on preprint servers is rising at an exponential rate. Survey of nephrology journals identified that 15 of 17 (88%) are publishing original research accepted submissions that have been uploaded to preprint servers. After reviewing 52 clinically impactful trials in nephrology discussed in the online Nephrology Journal Club (NephJC), an average lag of 300 days was found between study completion and publication, indicating an opportunity for faster research dissemination. Rapid review of papers discussing benefits and risks of preprint server use from the researcher, publisher, or end user perspective identified 53 papers that met criteria. Potential benefits of biomedical preprint servers included rapid dissemination, improved transparency of the peer review process, greater visibility and recognition, and collaboration. However, these benefits come at the risk of rapid spread of results not yet subjected to the rigors of peer review. Preprint servers shift the burden of critical appraisal to the reader. Media may be especially at risk due to their focus on "late-breaking" information. Preprint servers have played an even larger role when late-breaking research results are of special interest, such as during the global coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Coronavirus disease 2019 has brought both the benefits and risks of preprint servers to the forefront. Given the prominent online presence of the nephrology community, it is poised to lead the medicine community in appropriate use of preprint servers.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Cameron Giles
- Department of Medicine, Queens University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
| | - Swapnil Hiremath
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
| | - Matthew B. Lanktree
- Division of Nephrology, Department of Medicine, St. Joseph’s Healthcare Hamilton, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
18
|
Abdill RJ, Adamowicz EM, Blekhman R. International authorship and collaboration across bioRxiv preprints. eLife 2020; 9:e58496. [PMID: 32716295 PMCID: PMC7384855 DOI: 10.7554/elife.58496] [Citation(s) in RCA: 11] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/04/2020] [Accepted: 07/14/2020] [Indexed: 11/13/2022] Open
Abstract
Preprints are becoming well established in the life sciences, but relatively little is known about the demographics of the researchers who post preprints and those who do not, or about the collaborations between preprint authors. Here, based on an analysis of 67,885 preprints posted on bioRxiv, we find that some countries, notably the United States and the United Kingdom, are overrepresented on bioRxiv relative to their overall scientific output, while other countries (including China, Russia, and Turkey) show lower levels of bioRxiv adoption. We also describe a set of 'contributor countries' (including Uganda, Croatia and Thailand): researchers from these countries appear almost exclusively as non-senior authors on international collaborations. Lastly, we find multiple journals that publish a disproportionate number of preprints from some countries, a dynamic that almost always benefits manuscripts from the US.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Richard J Abdill
- Department of Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development, University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUnited States
| | - Elizabeth M Adamowicz
- Department of Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development, University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUnited States
| | - Ran Blekhman
- Department of Genetics, Cell Biology, and Development, University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUnited States
- Department of Ecology, Evolution and Behavior, University of MinnesotaMinneapolisUnited States
| |
Collapse
|