Science in motion: A qualitative analysis of journalists' use and perception of preprints.

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.

Academics in Absentia: An Opportunity to Rethink Conferences in the Age of Coronavirus Cancellations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused major disruptions to the academic medicine community, including the cancellation of most medical and health professions conferences. In this Perspective, the authors examine both the short- and longer-term implications of these cancellations, including the effects on the professional development and advancement of junior faculty and learners. While the COVID-19 pandemic is new in 2020, impediments to conference attendance and participation are not. Cost, personal responsibilities at home, and clinical duties have always restricted attendance. The authors argue that the unprecedented hardships of this pandemic present a unique opportunity to reimagine how conferences can be conducted and to rethink what it means to be part of an academic community. While there are challenges with this digital transformation of academia, there are also undeniable opportunities: online abstracts and recorded presentations enable wider viewership, virtual sessions permit wider participation and greater interactivity, and the elimination of travel facilitates more diverse expert panel participation. The authors conclude with proposals for how conference organizers and participants can expand access by leveraging available distance learning technology and other virtual tools, both during the COVID-19 pandemic and beyond.