Publishing of COVID-19 Preprints in Peer-reviewed Journals, Preprinting Trends, Public Discussion and Quality Issues (preprint)

ABSTRACT

IntroductionCOVID-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 favoured for publication, (ii) preprinting trends and public discussion of the preprints and (iii) relationship between the publication topic (COVID-19-related or not) and quality issues. MethodsManuscripts deposited at bioRxiv and medRxiv between January 1 and October 21 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. ResultsWith 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=1.99, 95%CI 1.76-2.25) as well as over the entire observed period (OR=1.49, 95%CI 1.36-1.62). Submission-to-acceptance was by 41.69 days (95%CI 46.56-36.80) 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. ConclusionCurrent data suggest a preference for publication of COVID-19-related preprints over the observed period.