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BACKGROUND: Preprints are publicly available manuscripts posted to various servers that have not been peer reviewed.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 Preprints that were not published were categorized as "unpublished preprints."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 The median Altmetric Attention Score for unpublished preprints (n=123, 44.7%) was 146 (IQR 22-552) with a median citation count of 2 (IQR 0-8); for original preprints (n=152, 55.2%), these values were 212 (IQR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.

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.

Preprint manuscripts and servers in the era of coronavirus disease 2019.

RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: To both examine the impact of preprint publishing on health sciences research and survey popular preprint servers amidst the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. METHODS: The authors queried three biomedical databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) and two preprint servers (MedRxiv and SSRN) to identify literature pertaining to preprints. Additionally, they evaluated 12 preprint servers featuring COVID-19 research through sample submission of six manuscripts. RESULTS: The realm of health sciences research has seen a dramatic increase in the presence and importance of preprint publications. By posting manuscripts on preprint servers, researchers are able to immediately communicate their findings, thereby facilitating prompt feedback and promoting collaboration. In doing so, they may also reduce publication bias and improve methodological transparency. However, by circumventing the peer-review process, academia incurs the risk of disseminating erroneous or misinterpreted data and suffering the downstream consequences. Never have these issues been better highlighted than during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Researchers have flooded the literature with preprint publications as stopgaps to meet the desperate need for knowledge about the disease. These unreviewed articles initially outnumbered those published in conventional journals and helped steer the mainstream scientific community at the start of the pandemic. In surveying select preprint servers, the authors discovered varying usability, review practices, and acceptance polices. CONCLUSION: While vital in the rapid dispensation of science, preprint manuscripts promulgate their conclusions without peer review and possess the capacity to misinform. Undoubtedly part of the future of science, conscientious consumers will need to appreciate not only their utility, but also their limitations.