Your browser doesn't support javascript.
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 44
Filter
3.
PLoS One ; 16(12): e0261622, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1597835

ABSTRACT

The skill of analyzing and interpreting research data is central to the scientific process, yet it is one of the hardest skills for students to master. While instructors can coach students through the analysis of data that they have either generated themselves or obtained from published articles, the burgeoning availability of preprint articles provides a new potential pedagogical tool. We developed a new method in which students use a cognitive apprenticeship model to uncover how experts analyzed a paper and compare the professional's cognitive approach to their own. Specifically, students first critique research data themselves and then identify changes between the preprint and final versions of the paper that were likely the results of peer review. From this activity, students reported diverse insights into the processes of data presentation, peer review, and scientific publishing. Analysis of preprint articles is therefore a valuable new tool to strengthen students' information literacy and understanding of the process of science.


Subject(s)
Data Analysis , Preprints as Topic , Science/education , Teaching , Communication , Humans , Peer Review , Teaching Materials
4.
Public Health Rep ; 137(2): 197-202, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1582752

ABSTRACT

The public health crisis created by the COVID-19 pandemic has spurred a deluge of scientific research aimed at informing the public health and medical response to the pandemic. However, early in the pandemic, those working in frontline public health and clinical care had insufficient time to parse the rapidly evolving evidence and use it for decision-making. Academics in public health and medicine were well-placed to translate the evidence for use by frontline clinicians and public health practitioners. The Novel Coronavirus Research Compendium (NCRC), a group of >60 faculty and trainees across the United States, formed in March 2020 with the goal to quickly triage and review the large volume of preprints and peer-reviewed publications on SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 and summarize the most important, novel evidence to inform pandemic response. From April 6 through December 31, 2020, NCRC teams screened 54 192 peer-reviewed articles and preprints, of which 527 were selected for review and uploaded to the NCRC website for public consumption. Most articles were peer-reviewed publications (n = 395, 75.0%), published in 102 journals; 25.1% (n = 132) of articles reviewed were preprints. The NCRC is a successful model of how academics translate scientific knowledge for practitioners and help build capacity for this work among students. This approach could be used for health problems beyond COVID-19, but the effort is resource intensive and may not be sustainable in the long term.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Data Curation/methods , Information Dissemination/methods , Interdisciplinary Research/organization & administration , Peer Review, Research , Preprints as Topic , SARS-CoV-2 , Humans , Public Health , United States
5.
Elife ; 102021 06 16.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1513072

ABSTRACT

Research in many different areas of medicine will benefit from new approaches to peer review and publishing.


Subject(s)
Peer Review, Research , Preprints as Topic , Publishing , Biomedical Research , COVID-19 , Humans
6.
Curr Opin Lipidol ; 33(2): 120-125, 2022 04 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1483672

ABSTRACT

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Preprinting, or the sharing of non-peer reviewed, unpublished scholarly manuscripts, has exploded in all fields of science and medicine over the past 5 years. We searched the literature and evaluated the posting and uptake of preprint publications in the field of lipidology in bioRxiv and medRxiv servers. We also contacted the editorial offices of 20 journals that publish original research in lipidology to gauge their policies on preprints. RECENT FINDINGS: All 20 journals contacted indicated that they accepted preprints. As of 31 May 2021, 473 and 231 preprints in lipidology had been submitted to bioRxiv and medRxiv, respectively. About half of all lipidology preprints were related to cardiovascular, cardiometabolic, and/or metabolic diseases (CVMD) and their risk factors, but at least 12 other disease categories were also represented. 16.9% and 1.08% of medRxiv and bioRxiv preprints, respectively, were related to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). SUMMARY: All identified journals accept lipidology themed preprints for submission, removing any barriers authors may have had regarding preprinting. Based on growing experience with preprinting, this trend should encourage increased community feedback and facilitate higher quality lipidology research in the future.


Subject(s)
Lipids , Preprints as Topic , COVID-19 , Forecasting , Humans , Preprints as Topic/trends
15.
PLoS One ; 16(6): e0244529, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1280615

ABSTRACT

Attitudes towards open peer review, open data and use of preprints influence scientists' engagement with those practices. Yet there is a lack of validated questionnaires that measure these attitudes. The goal of our study was to construct and validate such a questionnaire and use it to assess attitudes of Croatian scientists. We first developed a 21-item questionnaire called Attitudes towards Open data sharing, preprinting, and peer-review (ATOPP), which had a reliable four-factor structure, and measured attitudes towards open data, preprint servers, open peer-review and open peer-review in small scientific communities. We then used the ATOPP to explore attitudes of Croatian scientists (n = 541) towards these topics, and to assess the association of their attitudes with their open science practices and demographic information. Overall, Croatian scientists' attitudes towards these topics were generally neutral, with a median (Md) score of 3.3 out of max 5 on the scale score. We also found no gender (P = 0.995) or field differences (P = 0.523) in their attitudes. However, attitudes of scientist who previously engaged in open peer-review or preprinting were higher than of scientists that did not (Md 3.5 vs. 3.3, P<0.001, and Md 3.6 vs 3.3, P<0.001, respectively). Further research is needed to determine optimal ways of increasing scientists' attitudes and their open science practices.


Subject(s)
Peer Review, Research/trends , Preprints as Topic/trends , Scholarly Communication/trends , Adult , Aged , Attitude , Croatia , Cross-Sectional Studies , Faculty , Female , Humans , Information Dissemination/methods , Laboratory Personnel , Male , Middle Aged , Peer Review, Research/methods , Physicians , Psychometrics/methods , Surveys and Questionnaires
16.
Res Synth Methods ; 12(5): 607-617, 2021 Sep.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1258084

ABSTRACT

The Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register (CCSR) is a public, continually updated database of COVID-19 study references. The aim of this study-based register is to support rapid and living evidence synthesis, including an evidence ecosystem of COVID-19 research (CEOsys). In November and December 2020, we conducted an evaluation of the CCSR for CEOsys, measured its performance and identified areas for improvement. For the evaluation we generated a purposive sample of 286 studies from 20 reviews to calculate the CCSR's comprehensiveness (sensitivity), accuracy (correctly classified and linked studies) and currency (time to publish and process references). Our sample showed that the CCSR had an overall comprehensiveness of 77.2%, with the highest coverage for interventional studies (94.4%). The study register had 100% coverage for trial registry records, 86.5% for journal articles and 52.4% for preprints. A total of 98.3% of references were correctly classified with regard to study type, and 93.4% with regard to study aim. A total of 89% of studies were correctly linked. A total of 81.4% of references were published to the register in under 30 days, with 0.5 day (median) for trial registry records, 2 days for journal articles and 56 days for preprints. The CCSR had high comprehensiveness, accurate study classifications and short publishing times for journal articles and trial registry records in the sample. We identified that coverage and publishing time for preprints needed improvement. Finally, the evaluation illustrated the value of a study-based register for identifying additional study references for analysis in evidence synthesis.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Pandemics , Registries , SARS-CoV-2 , COVID-19/epidemiology , Clinical Trials as Topic , Data Collection , Databases, Factual , Evidence-Based Medicine , Germany/epidemiology , Humans , Preprints as Topic , Publications , Review Literature as Topic , Search Engine
19.
PLoS One ; 16(5): e0250887, 2021.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1229046

ABSTRACT

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether medRxiv data availability statements describe open or closed data-that is, whether the data used in the study is openly available without restriction-and to examine if this changes on publication based on journal data-sharing policy. Additionally, to examine whether data availability statements are sufficient to capture code availability declarations. DESIGN: Observational study, following a pre-registered protocol, of preprints posted on the medRxiv repository between 25th June 2019 and 1st May 2020 and their published counterparts. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Distribution of preprinted data availability statements across nine categories, determined by a prespecified classification system. Change in the percentage of data availability statements describing open data between the preprinted and published versions of the same record, stratified by journal sharing policy. Number of code availability declarations reported in the full-text preprint which were not captured in the corresponding data availability statement. RESULTS: 3938 medRxiv preprints with an applicable data availability statement were included in our sample, of which 911 (23.1%) were categorized as describing open data. 379 (9.6%) preprints were subsequently published, and of these published articles, only 155 contained an applicable data availability statement. Similar to the preprint stage, a minority (59 (38.1%)) of these published data availability statements described open data. Of the 151 records eligible for the comparison between preprinted and published stages, 57 (37.7%) were published in journals which mandated open data sharing. Data availability statements more frequently described open data on publication when the journal mandated data sharing (open at preprint: 33.3%, open at publication: 61.4%) compared to when the journal did not mandate data sharing (open at preprint: 20.2%, open at publication: 22.3%). CONCLUSION: Requiring that authors submit a data availability statement is a good first step, but is insufficient to ensure data availability. Strict editorial policies that mandate data sharing (where appropriate) as a condition of publication appear to be effective in making research data available. We would strongly encourage all journal editors to examine whether their data availability policies are sufficiently stringent and consistently enforced.


Subject(s)
Information Dissemination/methods , Peer Review, Research/trends , Preprints as Topic/trends , Data Accuracy , Editorial Policies , Humans , Peer Review, Research/methods , Policy
20.
PLoS Biol ; 19(4): e3000959, 2021 04.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: covidwho-1166988

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.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Information Dissemination/methods , Publishing/trends , SARS-CoV-2 , Biomedical Research/trends , COVID-19/epidemiology , Communication , Humans , Open Access Publishing/trends , Pandemics , Peer Review, Research/trends , Preprints as Topic , SARS-CoV-2/pathogenicity
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL