Preprints in Chemistry: a Research Team's Journey.

The benefits of publishing research papers first in preprint form are substantial and long-lasting also in chemistry. Recounting the outcomes of our team's nearly six-year journey through preprint publishing, we show evidence that preprinting research substantially benefits both early career and senior researchers in today's highly interdisciplinary chemical research. These findings are of general value, as shown by analyzing the case of four more research teams based in economically developed and developing countries.

Understanding the Use of e-Prints on Reddit and 4chan's Politically Incorrect Board

The dissemination and reach of scientific knowledge have increased at a blistering pace. In this context, e-Print servers have played a central role by providing scientists with a rapid and open mechanism for disseminating research without waiting for the (lengthy) peer review process. While helping the scientific community in several ways, e-Print servers also provide scientific communicators and the general public with access to a wealth of knowledge without paying hefty subscription fees. This motivates us to study how e-Prints are positioned within Web community discussions. In this paper, we analyze data from two Web communities: 14 years of Reddit data and over 4 from 4chan's Politically Incorrect board. Our findings highlight the presence of e-Prints in both science-enthusiast and general-audience communities. Real-world events and distinct factors influence the e-Prints people's discussions;e.g., there was a surge of COVID-19-related research publications during the early months of the outbreak and increased references to e-Prints in online discussions. Text in e-Prints and in online discussions referencing them has a low similarity, suggesting that the latter are not exclusively talking about the findings in the former. Further, our analysis of a sample of threads highlights: 1) misinterpretation and generalization of research findings, 2) early research findings being amplified as a source for future predictions, and 3) questioning findings from a pseudoscientific e-Print. Overall, our work emphasizes the need to quickly and effectively validate non-peer-reviewed e-Prints that get substantial press/social media coverage to help mitigate wrongful interpretations of scientific outputs. © 2023 ACM.

Model(s) of the future? Overlay journals as an overlooked and emerging trend in scholarly communication

Overlay journals, a potentially overlooked model of scholarly communication, have seen a resurgence due to the increasing number of preprint repositories and preprints on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) related topics. Overlay journals at various stages of maturity were examined for unique characteristics, including whether the authors submitted their article to the journal, whether the peer reviews of the article were published by the overlay journal, and whether the overlay journals took advantage of opportunities for increased discovery. As librarians and researchers seek new, futuristic models for publishing, overlay journals are emerging as an important contribution to scholarly communication.

COVID-19 retracted publications on retraction watch: A systematic survey of their pre-prints and citations.

Background: Studies related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) were frequently published as pre-prints prior to undergoing peer-review. However, several publications were later retracted due to ethical concerns or study misconduct. Although these studies have been retracted, the availability of their corresponding pre-prints has never been formally investigated, and may result in the spread of misinformation if they are being used to inform decision-making. Methods: Our objective was to conduct a systematic survey of retracted COVID-19 publications listed on the Retraction Watch database as of August 15th, 2021. We assessed the availability of corresponding pre-prints for retracted publications, and documented the number of citations and online views. Results: Our study included 140 retracted COVID-19 publications, and we could not retrieve corresponding pre-prints for 132 retracted publications in our study (94%). Although we were unable to find the majority of pre-prints, they had already been disseminated, with a maximal citation count of 593 and Altmetric score of 558,928. Conclusion: While it is reassuring that most corresponding pre-prints could not be retrieved, our study highlights the need for online platforms and journals to employ quality assurance methods to prevent the spread of misinformation through citation of retracted papers.

How Preprint Affects the Publishing Process: Duration of the Peer Review Process between bioRxiv and Journal Papers

During the COVID-19 epidemic, the characteristics of rapid sharing of research findings were fully reflected on the bioRxiv platform, which received considerable attention from scholars. bioRxiv currently collaborates with 242 journals, addressing that it can save authors time in submitting papers to journals or peer review services by transmitting their manuscript files and metadata directly from bioRxiv. To see if preprints are altering the publishing process, we compared the duration of the peer review process between bioRxiv and journal papers. This study investigated papers' submission and publication times from bioRxiv to journals (B2J) and authors to journals (A2J) in 119 academic journals from November 2013 to February 2020. Findings reveal that 33 journals exhibited significant differences in the duration time between B2J and A2J papers. B2J papers were published faster than A2J papers in 29 journals, indicating that sharing on the preprint platform could shorten the peer review time. 85th Annual Meeting of the Association for Information Science & Technology ;Oct. 29 – Nov. 1, 2022 ;Pittsburgh, PA. Author(s) retain copyright, but ASIS&T receives an exclusive publication license.

Reviewing COVID-19 from an anesthesiologist's perspective in 2022: JA symposium.

The COVID-19 pandemic is ongoing as of September 2022. Since January 2020 when the first case was reported in Japan, the medical community faced a variety of problems both domestically and internationally. It is meaningful to review the impact of COVID-19 from an anesthesiologist's perspective to clarify our policy for future infectious disease outbreaks. In this year's Journal of Anesthesia (JA) symposium, five experts who were deeply involved in the COVID-19 response reviewed the past 2.5 years and made recommendations for potential future pandemics. Anesthesiologists are specialists in airway management and their role in intubating patients with COVID-19 has received much attention. However, they have also played an important backup role in intensive care as critical care physicians and must be more involved in critical care in regular (non-pandemic) times to properly fulfill this role. It is especially important for the Japan Society of Anesthesiologists and JA to quickly disseminate accurate information on unknown infectious diseases to the medical community and wider society. Therefore, it is important to promptly publish papers that are quality-assured through peer review.

The role of the information community in ensuring that information is authoritative: Strategies from NISO Plus 2022

This article reports on a NISO Plus 2022 session that addressed what can be done to safeguard the integrity of the scholarly content being created, disseminated, and used. How much responsibility does the information community have in ensuring that the content we provide is authoritative? Preprints are a great way to make early research results available, but it is not always clear that those results are not yet thoroughly vetted. Peer review - a key element of scholarly publication - can help, but is far from foolproof. Retractions are another important tool, but most retracted research is still all too readily available. What can and should we be doing to safeguard the integrity of the content being created, disseminated, and used? © 2022 - The authors. Published by IOS Press.

COVID-19 pandemic as reflected in Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine.

The editorial demonstrates changes in the number and subject matter of papers dealing with issues related to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), which were published in Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine (ACEM) during 3 years of the pandemic (2020-2022). In 2020, 24 such manuscripts were submitted to the editorial office, of which 9 were published; in 2021, 48 were submitted and 10 published, while in 2022, there were 34 articles submitted and 4 published. Authors of this editorial point out that while initially chances for publication of papers regarding COVID-19 were greater than papers covering other issues, the editors of ACEM gradually enforced the same requirements for COVID-19-related papers as for the others (the acceptance rate for these papers was 37.5% in 2020, 20.8% in 2021 and 11.8% in 2022). The published papers described, among other aspects, the relationship between COVID-19 and other diseases (e.g., pneumonia, Parkinson's disease and acute kidney injury) and methods of preventing severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection among healthcare staff. An emergency situation of pandemic called for disseminating the results of scientific research as promptly as possible; however, the proper answer to this challenge is not lowering and simplifying requirements for peer review, but releasing the results in a form of registered preprints, which allow for provisionally making the paper available for the scientific community while the peer review verification is still ongoing.

COVID-19-Related manuscripts: lag from preprint to publication.

OBJECTIVE: Preprints have had a prominent role in the swift scientific response to COVID-19. Two years into the pandemic, we investigated how much preprints had contributed to timely data sharing by analyzing the lag time from preprint posting to journal publication. RESULTS: To estimate the median number of days between the date a manuscript was posted as a preprint and the date of its publication in a scientific journal, we analyzed preprints posted from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021 in the NIH iSearch COVID-19 Portfolio database and performed a Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis using a non-mixture parametric cure model. Of the 39,243 preprints in our analysis, 7712 (20%) were published in a journal, after a median lag of 178 days (95% CI: 175-181). Most of the published preprints were posted on the bioRxiv (29%) or medRxiv (65%) servers, which allow authors to choose a subject category when posting. Of the 20,698 preprints posted on these two servers, 7358 (36%) were published, including approximately half of those categorized as biochemistry, biophysics, and genomics, which became published articles within the study interval, compared with 29% categorized as epidemiology and 26% as bioinformatics.

How the Covid-19 crisis shaped research collaboration behaviour

The paper explores the impact of Covid-19 on scientists' collaboration behaviour in the 14 countries with the largest research output. The approach is bibliometric, taking the unit of analysis of collaborations as the individual researchers and the co-authorships in their preprints. The time plot of the data confirms a clear discontinuity in the number of preprint depositions after the Covid-19 outbreak. Less evident is the discontinuity in average number of co-authors per preprint, and also in propensity to collaborate. Investigating further, a multivariate econometric analysis shows that for propensity to national collaboration (both intra- and extramural) there has been a positive “effect” from the pandemic, but negative one on international collaboration. The same analysis conducted by country, however, reveals that these effects are significant only in some countries and often with discordant signs. © 2022, Akadémiai Kiadó, Budapest, Hungary.

Publication and Impact of Preprints Included in the First 100 Editions of the CDC COVID-19 Science Update: Content Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Preprints are publicly available manuscripts posted to various servers that have not been peer reviewed. Although preprints have existed since 1961, they have gained increased popularity during the COVID-19 pandemic due to the need for immediate, relevant information. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the publication rate and impact of preprints included in the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) COVID-19 Science Update and assess the performance of the COVID-19 Science Update team in selecting impactful preprints. METHODS: All preprints in the first 100 editions (April 1, 2020, to July 30, 2021) of the Science Update were included in the study. Preprints that were not published were categorized as "unpublished preprints." Preprints that were subsequently published exist in 2 versions (in a peer-reviewed journal and on the original preprint server), which were analyzed separately and referred to as "peer-reviewed preprint" and "original preprint," respectively. Time to publish was the time interval between the date on which a preprint was first posted and the date on which it was first available as a peer-reviewed article. Impact was quantified by Altmetric Attention Score and citation count for all available manuscripts on August 6, 2021. Preprints were analyzed by publication status, publication rate, preprint server, and time to publication. RESULTS: Of the 275 preprints included in the CDC COVID-19 Science Update during the study period, most came from three servers: medRxiv (n=201, 73.1%), bioRxiv (n=41, 14.9%), and SSRN (n=25, 9.1%), with 8 (2.9%) coming from other sources. Additionally, 152 (55.3%) were eventually published. The median time to publish was 2.3 (IQR 1.4-3.7). When preprints posted in the last 2.3 months were excluded (to account for the time to publish), the publication rate was 67.8%. Moreover, 76 journals published at least one preprint from the CDC COVID-19 Science Update, and 18 journals published at least three. The median Altmetric Attention Score for unpublished preprints (n=123, 44.7%) was 146 (IQR 22-552) with a median citation count of 2 (IQR 0-8); for original preprints (n=152, 55.2%), these values were 212 (IQR 22-1164) and 14 (IQR 2-40), respectively; for peer-review preprints, these values were 265 (IQR 29-1896) and 19 (IQR 3-101), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Prior studies of COVID-19 preprints found publication rates between 5.4% and 21.1%. Preprints included in the CDC COVID-19 Science Update were published at a higher rate than overall COVID-19 preprints, and those that were ultimately published were published within months and received higher attention scores than unpublished preprints. These findings indicate that the Science Update process for selecting preprints had a high fidelity in terms of their likelihood to be published and their impact. The incorporation of high-quality preprints into the CDC COVID-19 Science Update improves this activity's capacity to inform meaningful public health decision-making.

Reporting of funding and conflicts of interest improved from preprints to peer-reviewed publications of biomedical research.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: To assess changes in the reporting of funding and conflicts of interest (COI) in biomedical research between preprint server publications and their corresponding versions in peer-reviewed journals. METHODS: We selected preprint servers publishing exclusively biomedical research. From these, we screened articles by order of publication date and identified 200 preprints first published in 2020 with subsequent versions in peer-reviewed journals. We judged eligibility and extracted data about authorship, funding, and COI in duplicate and independently. We performed descriptive statistics. RESULTS: A quarter of the studies added at least one author to the peer-reviewed version. Most studies reported funding in both versions (87%), and a quarter of these added at least one funder to the peer-reviewed version. Eighteen studies (9%) reported funding only in the peer-reviewed version. A majority of studies reported COI in both versions (69%) and 5% of these had authors reporting more COI in the peer-reviewed version. A minority of studies (23%) reported COI only in the peer-reviewed version. None of the studies justified any changes in authorship, funding, or COI. CONCLUSION: Reporting of funding and COI improved in peer-reviewed versions. However, substantive percentages of studies added authors, funders, and COI disclosures in their peer-reviewed versions.

The Publication Ethics of Preprints and Preprints’ Influence on Knowledge Dissemination during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Preprints are a crucial vehicle for knowledge dissemination in modern times. The vigorous development of the preprint industry demonstrates the significance of open science and represents a significant change in the manner research results are disseminated. This study explores preprints through literature analysis. Specifically, publication ethics issues related to preprints and their role in knowledge dissemination during the COVID-19 pandemic are discussed. First, this study examines the history and characteristics of preprints, investigating their functions and features in academic research and knowledge dissemination. Further, three issues related to publication ethics resulting from the knowledge dissemination model of preprints are presented. The study also sheds light on preprints in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the quantity and quality of preprints. In addition, the positive impact of preprints on knowledge dissimilation during the COVID-19 pandemic and some latent problems are also discussed. Finally, the author of this study proposes suggestions for institutions and individuals serving different roles in the academic community regarding the aspects in which they can help promote the publication ethics and rightful knowledge dissemination of preprints. © 2022. Journal of Educational Media and Library Sciences.All Rights Reserved

Open data and data sharing in articles about COVID-19 published in preprint servers medRxiv and bioRxiv.

This study aimed to analyze the content of data availability statements (DAS) and the actual sharing of raw data in preprint articles about COVID-19. The study combined a bibliometric analysis and a cross-sectional survey. We analyzed preprint articles on COVID-19 published on medRxiv and bioRxiv from January 1, 2020 to March 30, 2020. We extracted data sharing statements, tried to locate raw data when authors indicated they were available, and surveyed authors. The authors were surveyed in 2020-2021. We surveyed authors whose articles did not include DAS, who indicated that data are available on request, or their manuscript reported that raw data are available in the manuscript, but raw data were not found. Raw data collected in this study are published on Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/6ztec/). We analyzed 897 preprint articles. There were 699 (78%) articles with Data/Code field present on the website of a preprint server. In 234 (26%) preprints, data/code sharing statement was reported within the manuscript. For 283 preprints that reported that data were accessible, we found raw data/code for 133 (47%) of those 283 preprints (15% of all analyzed preprint articles). Most commonly, authors indicated that data were available on GitHub or another clearly specified web location, on (reasonable) request, in the manuscript or its supplementary files. In conclusion, preprint servers should require authors to provide data sharing statements that will be included both on the website and in the manuscript. Education of researchers about the meaning of data sharing is needed. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-022-04346-1.

Publishing of COVID-19 preprints in peer-reviewed journals, preprinting trends, public discussion and quality issues.

COVID-19-related (vs. non-related) articles appear to be more expeditiously processed and published in peer-reviewed journals. We aimed to evaluate: (i) whether COVID-19-related preprints were favored for publication, (ii) preprinting trends and public discussion of the preprints, and (iii) the relationship between the publication topic (COVID-19-related or not) and quality issues. Manuscripts deposited at bioRxiv and medRxiv between January 1 and September 27 2020 were assessed for the probability of publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and those published were evaluated for submission-to-acceptance time. The extent of public discussion was assessed based on Altmetric and Disqus data. The Retraction Watch Database and PubMed were used to explore the retraction of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 articles and preprints. With adjustment for the preprinting server and number of deposited versions, COVID-19-related preprints were more likely to be published within 120 days since the deposition of the first version (OR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.80-2.14) as well as over the entire observed period (OR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.31-1.48). Submission-to-acceptance was by 35.85 days (95% CI: 32.25-39.45) shorter for COVID-19 articles. Public discussion of preprints was modest and COVID-19 articles were overrepresented in the pool of retracted articles in 2020. Current data suggest a preference for publication of COVID-19-related preprints over the observed period. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11192-021-04249-7.

Impact of Covid-19 on research output by gender across countries.

The massive shock of the COVID-19 pandemic has already shown its negative effects on economies around the world, unprecedented in recent history. COVID-19 infections and containment measures caused a general slowdown in research and new knowledge production. Because of the link between R&D output and economic growth, it is to be expected then that a slowdown in research activities will slow in turn the global recovery from the pandemic. Many recent studies also claim an uneven impact on scientific production across gender. In this paper, we investigate the phenomenon across countries, analysing preprint depositions in main repositories. Differently from other works, that compare the number of preprint depositions before and after the pandemic outbreak, we analyse the depositions trends across geographical areas, and contrast after-pandemic outbreak depositions with expected ones. Differently from common belief and initial evidence, the decrease in research output is not more severe for women than for men.

Addressing disorder in scholarly communication: Strategies from NISO plus 2021

Open science and preprints have invited a larger audience of readers, especially during the pandemic. Consequently, communicating the limitations and uncertainties of research to a broader public has become important over the entire information lifecycle. This paper brings together reports from the NISO Plus 2021 conference session “Misinformation and truth: from fake news to retractions to preprints”. We discuss the validation and verification of scientific information at the preprint stage in order to support sound and open science standards, at the publication stage in order to limit the spread of retracted research, and after publication, to fight fake news about health-related research by mining open access content. © 2021 - The authors. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License (CC BY-NC 4.0).