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.

The Worldwide Prevalence of Sleep Problems Among Medical Students by Problem, Country, and COVID-19 Status: a Systematic Review, Meta-analysis, and Meta-regression of 109 Studies Involving 59427 Participants.

Purpose of Review: Several studies have found that medical students have a significant prevalence of sleep issues, such as poor sleep quality, excessive daytime sleepiness, and inadequate sleep duration. The purpose of this review is to carefully evaluate the current research on sleep problems among medical students and, as a result, estimate the prevalence of these disturbances. The EMBASE, PsychINFO, PubMed/MEDLINE, ScienceDirect, Scopus, and Web of Science and retrieved article reference lists were rigorously searched and rated for quality. Random effects meta-analysis was performed to compute estimates. Recent Findings: The current meta-analysis revealed an alarming estimated pooled prevalence of poor sleep quality (K = 95, N = 54894) of 55.64% [95%CI 51.45%; 59.74%]. A total of 33.32% [95%CI 26.52%; 40.91%] of the students (K = 28, N = 10122) experienced excessive sleepiness during the day. The average sleep duration for medical students (K = 35, N = 18052) is only 6.5 h per night [95%CI 6.24; 6.64], which suggests that at least 30% of them get less sleep than the recommended 7-9 h per night. Summary: Sleep issues are common among medical students, making them a genuine problem. Future research should focus on prevention and intervention initiatives aimed at these groups. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s40675-023-00258-5.

Too WEIRD, Too Fast? Preprints About COVID-19 in the Psychological Sciences

That behavioral sciences are overrepresented by some countries, in terms of samples and authors, is a well-documented finding. Considering the immediate policy implications, the present study explored whether this bias also exists for research on the coronavirus pandemic. Preprints posted on PsyArXiv between two time periods in 2020 (March-April and May-December) with keywords related to "COVID-19" were sourced and their participant and author composition were assessed. Western and rich democracies were overrepresented in terms of authors and participants;preprints posted by authors from western and democratic countries were cited more and were published in journals with a higher impact factor. Implications, especially regarding a reductionist bifurcation of research as "WEIRD" or "non-WEIRD," are discussed.

Open Science services and tools to get information from outreach articles

The pandemic caused by the SARS-CoV-2 virus has caused in the scientific community the need to collaborate as well as promoting Open Science practices, including the open data paradigm to stimulate resing. In this article a set of outreach articles published in The Conversation are analyzed together with some Open Science services and tools to carry out an analysis of their content and context, including information about their authors, institutions and disciplines. This information can be analyzed to better understand the entire research life cycle while facilitating the discovery of relationships at the article, topics or experts.

COVID-Vis: Visualizing knowledge exchange on scientific software development in the COVID-19 era

As the world is still recovering from the detrimental effects of the COVID-19 pandemic, one key aspect of the pandemic era were the global efforts for containment, case tracking and several other factors. While the scientific and governmental initiatives were largely successful and effective, a notable surge was observed in contributions from individuals and programming communities that developed their own software for COVID-19 by using data retrieval and analysis along with visualization methodologies. To achieve their goals, they turned their attention to knowledge exchange portals and asked questions regarding technological queries. In this paper, we present a collective platform that retrieves such questions from a well-known Q&A portal and visualizes the contained information. This platform serves as a useful tool for assessing programming and technological interest in COVID-19 related software development efforts while also promoting the open science principles. © 2022 ACM.

Micropublishing During and After the COVID-19 Era

In the COVID-19 situation, social and behavioral science evidence is accumulating rapidly through online data collection, but the options to share and publish this information are scarce. As a remedy, I recommend the adoption of micropublishing in the fields of social and behavioral sciences. While micropublishing has been gaining popularity, it is not yet widely accepted or utilized by existing academic journals. Greater implementation would improve the availability of data in the immediate COVID-19 era and establish a post-COVID-19 publishing methodology that could increase researcher and practitioner engagement in real time. I recommend micropublishing in a specific manner that bifurcates an experiment's methodology or survey method from the subsequently published data based on that experiment protocol. Published findings could be presented in a series and edited as new data emerges. This publishing system promotes cumulative science. To provide a visual example that supports my argument, I created a demo journal with sample papers organized according to the structure I recommend. The demo journal has features-except a Digital Object Finder (DOI)-that make it possible to publish social and behavioral sciences research. It could be replicated for a newly established journal. Alternatively, existing journals could add a section dedicated to micropublication. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved)

Open science progress: A literature assessment of open access articles

The open science movement has been widely adopted in multiple scientific fields across nations. Its benefit has been proven in many cases, most notably when the practice accelerated the search for solutions to the Covid-19 pandemic both in medical and socio-economic contexts. Still, the movement has faced multiple challenges, including an imbalance in the adoption of its numerous aspects. For example, the open access aspect which indicates the starting point of the movement has been widely practiced. Unfortunately, while open access is essential, an open access practice alone is not enough to pursue open science. In this work, we would like to assess the imbalance of the adoption, especially to measure how open access practice contributes to other practices, namely open data and open source as a sub-aspect of the open reproducibility research. Our assessment is based on descriptive statistic analysis of 300 open access articles from three domains, that is engineering, social and life science. Our findings indicated that the free and open source computer codes were dominantly adopted by the three scientific fields. However, social science has the lowest involvement in public data. © 2022 ACM.

Changes in health communication in the age of COVID-19: A study on the dissemination of preprints to the public.

Introduction: Preprints have become an important tool for meeting the challenges of health communication in the context of COVID-19. They allow scientists to disseminate their results more quickly due to the absence of a peer review process. Preprints have been well-received by scientists, however, there have been concerns about the exposure of wider public audiences to preprints due in part to this lack of peer review. Methods: The aim of this study is to examine the dissemination of preprints on medRxiv and bioRxiv during the COVID-19 pandemic using content analysis and statistical analysis. Results: Our findings show that preprints have played an unprecedented role in disseminating COVID-19-related science results to the public. Discussion: While the overall media coverage of preprints is unsatisfactory, digital native news media performed better than legacy media in reporting preprints, which means that we could make the most of digital native media to improve health communication. This study contributes to understanding how science communication has evolved in response to the COVID-19 pandemic and provides some practical recommendations.

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.

Open access and its potential impact on public health - A South African perspective.

Traditionally, access to research information has been restricted through journal subscriptions. This means that research entities and individuals who were unable to afford subscription costs did not have access to journal articles. There has however been a progressive shift toward electronic access to journal publications and subsequently growth in the number of journals available globally. In the context of electronic journals, both open access and restricted access options exist. While the latter option is comparable to traditional, subscription-based paper journals, open access journal publications follow an "open science" publishing model allowing scholarly communications and outputs to be publicly available online at no cost to the reader. However, for readers to enjoy open access, publication costs are shifted elsewhere, typically onto academic institutions and authors. SARS-CoV-2, and the resulting COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted the benefits of open science through accelerated research and unprecedented levels of collaboration and data sharing. South Africa is one of the leading open access countries on the African continent. This paper focuses on open access in the South African higher education research context with an emphasis on our Institution and our own experiences. It also addresses the financial implications of open access and provides possible solutions for reducing the cost of publication for researchers and their institutions. Privacy in open access and the role of the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA) in medical research and secondary use of data in South Africa will also be discussed.

International cohort study indicates no association between alpha-1 blockers and susceptibility to COVID-19 in benign prostatic hyperplasia patients.

Purpose: Alpha-1 blockers, often used to treat benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH), have been hypothesized to prevent COVID-19 complications by minimising cytokine storm release. The proposed treatment based on this hypothesis currently lacks support from reliable real-world evidence, however. We leverage an international network of large-scale healthcare databases to generate comprehensive evidence in a transparent and reproducible manner. Methods: In this international cohort study, we deployed electronic health records from Spain (SIDIAP) and the United States (Department of Veterans Affairs, Columbia University Irving Medical Center, IQVIA OpenClaims, Optum DOD, Optum EHR). We assessed association between alpha-1 blocker use and risks of three COVID-19 outcomes-diagnosis, hospitalization, and hospitalization requiring intensive services-using a prevalent-user active-comparator design. We estimated hazard ratios using state-of-the-art techniques to minimize potential confounding, including large-scale propensity score matching/stratification and negative control calibration. We pooled database-specific estimates through random effects meta-analysis. Results: Our study overall included 2.6 and 0.46 million users of alpha-1 blockers and of alternative BPH medications. We observed no significant difference in their risks for any of the COVID-19 outcomes, with our meta-analytic HR estimates being 1.02 (95% CI: 0.92-1.13) for diagnosis, 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89-1.13) for hospitalization, and 1.15 (95% CI: 0.71-1.88) for hospitalization requiring intensive services. Conclusion: We found no evidence of the hypothesized reduction in risks of the COVID-19 outcomes from the prevalent-use of alpha-1 blockers-further research is needed to identify effective therapies for this novel disease.

White Paper: Open Digital Health - accelerating transparent and scalable health promotion and treatment.

In this White Paper, we outline recommendations from the perspective of health psychology and behavioural science, addressing three research gaps: (1) What methods in the health psychology research toolkit can be best used for developing and evaluating digital health tools? (2) What are the most feasible strategies to reuse digital health tools across populations and settings? (3) What are the main advantages and challenges of sharing (openly publishing) data, code, intervention content and design features of digital health tools? We provide actionable suggestions for researchers joining the continuously growing Open Digital Health movement, poised to revolutionise health psychology research and practice in the coming years. This White Paper is positioned in the current context of the COVID-19 pandemic, exploring how digital health tools have rapidly gained popularity in 2020-2022, when world-wide health promotion and treatment efforts rapidly shifted from face-to-face to remote delivery. This statement is written by the Directors of the not-for-profit Open Digital Health initiative (n = 6), Experts attending the European Health Psychology Society Synergy Expert Meeting (n = 17), and the initiative consultant, following a two-day meeting (19-20th August 2021).

The score after 10 years of registration of systematic review protocols.

BACKGROUND: With the exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SR), there is a high potential for overlapping and redundant duplication of work. Prospective protocol registration gives the opportunity to assess the added value of a new study or review, thereby potentially reducing research waste and simultaneously increasing transparency and research quality. The PROSPERO database for SR protocol registration was launched 10 years ago. This study aims to assess the proportion SRs of intervention studies with a protocol registration (or publication) and explore associations of SR characteristics with protocol registration status. METHODS: PubMed was searched for SRs of human intervention studies published in January 2020 and January 2021. After random-stratified sampling and eligibility screening, data extraction on publication and journal characteristics, and protocol registration status, was performed. Both descriptive and multivariable comparative statistical analyses were performed. RESULTS: A total of 357 SRs (2020: n = 163; 2021: n = 194) were included from a random sample of 1267 publications. Of the published SRs, 38% had a protocol. SRs that reported using PRISMA as a reporting guideline had higher odds of having a protocol than publications that did not report PRISMA (OR 2.71; 95% CI: 1.21 to 6.09). SRs with a higher journal impact factor had higher odds of having a protocol (OR 1.12; 95% CI 1.04 to 1.25). Publications from Asia had a lower odds of having a protocol (OR 0.43; 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80, reference category = Europe). Of the 33 SRs published in journals that endorse PROSPERO, 45% did not have a protocol. Most SR protocols were registered in PROSPERO (n = 129; 96%). CONCLUSIONS: We found that 38% of recently published SRs of interventions reported a registered or published protocol. Protocol registration was significantly associated with a higher impact factor of the journal publishing the SR and a more frequent self-reported use of the PRISMA guidelines. In some parts of the world, SR protocols are more often registered or published than others. To guide strategies to increase the uptake of SR protocol registration, further research is needed to gain understanding of the benefits and informativeness of SRs protocols among different stakeholders. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: osf.io/9kj7r/.

Research at risk: Global challenges, international perspectives, and Canadian solutions

Although traditionally viewed as paragons of international cooperation, research institutions and universities are becoming venues for hostile foreign activity. Research security (RS) refers to the measures that protect the inputs, processes, and products that are part of scientific research, inquiry, and discovery. While RS traces its roots to the 1940s, global economic and research and development competition, the nexus between dual-use technology and military power, a cluster of newly emerging industries, scientific responses to the COVID-19 pandemic, and societal shifts towards digitization, combine to challenge RS in unique ways. With an eye on safeguarding traditional notions of open science, our article refurbishes Canadian RS within the context of emerging challenges and international responses. Detailing the legal, extralegal, illegal, and other ways in which RS is threatened, we use a comparative assessment of emerging responses in the US, Australia, Japan, and Israel to draw lessons for Canada.

Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic and recent developments on the communication of clinical trials, publishing practices, and research integrity: in conversation with Dr. David Moher.

BACKGROUND: The torrent of research during the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic has exposed the persistent challenges with reporting trials, open science practices, and scholarship in academia. These real-world examples provide unique learning opportunities for research methodologists and clinical epidemiologists-in-training. Dr. David Moher, a recognized expert on the science of research reporting and one of the founders of the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) statement, was a guest speaker for the 2021 Hooker Distinguished Visiting Professor Lecture series at McMaster University and shared his insights about these issues. MAIN TEXT: This paper covers a discussion on the influence of reporting guidelines on trials and issues with the use of CONSORT as a measure of quality. Dr. Moher also addresses how the overwhelming body of COVID-19 research reflects the "publish or perish" paradigm in academia and why improvement in the reporting of trials requires policy initiatives from research institutions and funding agencies. We also discuss the rise of publication bias and other questionable reporting practices. To combat this, Dr. Moher believes open science and training initiatives led by institutions can foster research integrity, including the trustworthiness of researchers, institutions, and journals, as well as counter threats posed by predatory journals. He highlights how metrics like journal impact factor and quantity of publications also harm research integrity. Dr. Moher also discussed the importance of meta-science, the study of how research is carried out, which can help to evaluate audit and feedback systems and their effect on open science practices. CONCLUSION: Dr. Moher advocates for policy to further improve the reporting of trials and health research. The COVID-19 pandemic has exposed how a lack of open science practices and flawed systems incentivizing researchers to publish can harm research integrity. There is a need for a culture shift in assessing careers and "productivity" in academia, and this requires collaborative top-down and bottom-up approaches.

Reproducibility of COVID-19 pre-prints.

To examine the reproducibility of COVID-19 research, we create a dataset of pre-prints posted to arXiv, bioRxiv, and medRxiv between 28 January 2020 and 30 June 2021 that are related to COVID-19. We extract the text from these pre-prints and parse them looking for keyword markers signaling the availability of the data and code underpinning the pre-print. For the pre-prints that are in our sample, we are unable to find markers of either open data or open code for 75% of those on arXiv, 67% of those on bioRxiv, and 79% of those on medRxiv.

Brilliant Ideas Can Come in All Sizes: Research Letters.

The Journal of Medical Internet Research is pleased to offer "Research Letter" as a new article type. Research Letters are similar to original and short paper types in that they report the original results of studies in a peer-reviewed, structured scientific communication. The Research Letter article type is optimal for presenting new, early, or sometimes preliminary research findings, including interesting observations from ongoing research with significant implications that justify concise and rapid communication.

A light in the dark: open access to medical literature and the COVID-19 pandemic

Introduction. This study was designed to evaluate the accessibility of peer-reviewed literature regarding COVID-19 and the ten diseases with the highest death toll worldwide. Method. We conducted extensive searches of studies concerning COVID-19 and other diseases using the Web of Science, and the Google and Google Scholar search engines. Analysis. Open access rates were obtained from the Web of Science database, taking into account different types of publications and research areas. Quantitative analyses based on random samplings were used to estimate the potential increase of open access rates achievable with open archiving of post-prints. Results. The open access rate of COVID-19 papers (89.5%) largely outnumbered that of the ten most deadly human diseases (48.8%, on average). We estimated that most of the gap (70%) could be bridged by making available online, post-print manuscripts. Conclusions. The pandemic represents a real breakthrough, in scientific publishing, towards the goal of health information for all, demonstrating that much greater access to medical literature is possible. The green road may be the best way to bring open access rates of peer review of other major diseases closer to that of COVID-19. However, it needs to be implemented more effectively, combining bottom-up and top-down actions and making the open science culture more widespread.