Exploring the current dynamics of preprints.

Preprints are non-peer-reviewed and publicly available articles for open and transparent research communication. Preprint servers host the submission of such manuscripts, and despite the presence of established preprint servers, their numbers have continued to rise in recent times. A steep increasing pattern in posted preprints and their accommodating servers has been observed over the last decade. In this article, we explored the global trends in the preprint adoption and its involvement in promoting open and transparent research findings across various domains. We further emphasized the importance of preprinting, highlighting its significant impact during the pandemic through effective information sharing, and advocating for its broader integration in scholarly communication.

Reimagining bioRxiv and preprint servers as platforms for academic learning.

A popular preprint server, bioRxiv, is important as a tool for increased visibility for life science research. If used properly, however, bioRxiv can also be an important tool for training, as it may expose trainees (degree-seeking students undertaking research or internships directly related to their field of study) to the peer review process. Here, we offer a comprehensive guide to using bioRxiv as a training tool, as well as offer suggestions for improvements in bioRxiv, including confusion that may be caused by bioRxiv articles appearing on PubMed.

Comparison of effect estimates between preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles of COVID-19 trials.

BACKGROUND: Preprints are increasingly used to disseminate research results, providing multiple sources of information for the same study. We assessed the consistency in effect estimates between preprint and subsequent journal article of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials. METHODS: The study utilized data from the COVID-NMA living systematic review of pharmacological treatments for COVID-19 (covid-nma.com) up to July 20, 2022. We identified randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating pharmacological treatments vs. standard of care/placebo for patients with COVID-19 that were originally posted as preprints and subsequently published as journal articles. Trials that did not report the same analysis in both documents were excluded. Data were extracted independently by pairs of researchers with consensus to resolve disagreements. Effect estimates extracted from the first preprint were compared to effect estimates from the journal article. RESULTS: The search identified 135 RCTs originally posted as a preprint and subsequently published as a journal article. We excluded 26 RCTs that did not meet the eligibility criteria, of which 13 RCTs reported an interim analysis in the preprint and a final analysis in the journal article. Overall, 109 preprint-article RCTs were included in the analysis. The median (interquartile range) delay between preprint and journal article was 121 (73-187) days, the median sample size was 150 (71-464) participants, 76% of RCTs had been prospectively registered, 60% received industry or mixed funding, 72% were multicentric trials. The overall risk of bias was rated as 'some concern' for 80% of RCTs. We found that 81 preprint-article pairs of RCTs were consistent for all outcomes reported. There were nine RCTs with at least one outcome with a discrepancy in the number of participants with outcome events or the number of participants analyzed, which yielded a minor change in the estimate of the effect. Furthermore, six RCTs had at least one outcome missing in the journal article and 14 RCTs had at least one outcome added in the journal article compared to the preprint. There was a change in the direction of effect in one RCT. No changes in statistical significance or conclusions were found. CONCLUSIONS: Effect estimates were generally consistent between COVID-19 preprints and subsequent journal articles. The main results and interpretation did not change in any trial. Nevertheless, some outcomes were added and deleted in some journal articles.

Confidence score: a data-driven measure for inclusive systematic reviews considering unpublished preprints.

OBJECTIVES: COVID-19, since its emergence in December 2019, has globally impacted research. Over 360 000 COVID-19-related manuscripts have been published on PubMed and preprint servers like medRxiv and bioRxiv, with preprints comprising about 15% of all manuscripts. Yet, the role and impact of preprints on COVID-19 research and evidence synthesis remain uncertain. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We propose a novel data-driven method for assigning weights to individual preprints in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. This weight termed the "confidence score" is obtained using the survival cure model, also known as the survival mixture model, which takes into account the time elapsed between posting and publication of a preprint, as well as metadata such as the number of first 2-week citations, sample size, and study type. RESULTS: Using 146 preprints on COVID-19 therapeutics posted from the beginning of the pandemic through April 30, 2021, we validated the confidence scores, showing an area under the curve of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.98). Through a use case on the effectiveness of hydroxychloroquine, we demonstrated how these scores can be incorporated practically into meta-analyses to properly weigh preprints. DISCUSSION: It is important to note that our method does not aim to replace existing measures of study quality but rather serves as a supplementary measure that overcomes some limitations of current approaches. CONCLUSION: Our proposed confidence score has the potential to improve systematic reviews of evidence related to COVID-19 and other clinical conditions by providing a data-driven approach to including unpublished manuscripts.

The Role of the Journal Impact Factor in Chemistry Research.

The journal impact factor (JIF) is a skewed metrics whose value is dictated by just a few highly cited articles. Therefore, the use of the JIF to evaluate journals, scholars, or research institutes is flawed. Still, the JIF continues to play a central role in evaluating scholarship in chemistry, the most reluctant amid scientific disciplines to embrace the principles of open science. This study investigates the origins of this social behavior, and suggests avenues to improve scholarly communication in the chemical sciences following the example of the life sciences.

Limiting open science? Three approaches to bottom-up governance of dual-use research of concern.

Governing dual-use research of concern (DURC) in the life sciences has become difficult owing to the diversification of scientific domains, digitalization of potential threats, and the proliferation of actors. This paper proposes three approaches to realize bottom-up governance of DURC from laboratory operation to institutional decision-making levels. First, a technological approach can predict and monitor the dual-use nature of the research target pathogens and their information. Second, an interactive approach is proposed in which diverse stakeholders proactively discuss and examine dual-use issues through research practice. Third, a personnel approach can identify the right persons involved in DURC. These approaches suggest that, going beyond self-governance by researchers, collaborative and networked governance involving diverse actors should become essential. This mode of governance can also be seen in light of the management of research use. Therefore, program design by funding agencies and publication screening by journal publishers continuously contribute to governance at the meso-level. Bottom-up governance may be realized by using an appropriately integrated design of these three approaches at the micro-level, such as dual-use prediction and monitoring, stakeholder dialogue, and background checks. Given that the term 'open science' has been promoted to the research community as part of top-down governance, paying due attention on site to research subjects, research practices, and persons involved in research will provide an opportunity to develop a more socially conscious open science.

Comparing the prevalence of statistical reporting inconsistencies in COVID-19 preprints and matched controls: a registered report.

The COVID-19 outbreak has led to an exponential increase of publications and preprints about the virus, its causes, consequences, and possible cures. COVID-19 research has been conducted under high time pressure and has been subject to financial and societal interests. Doing research under such pressure may influence the scrutiny with which researchers perform and write up their studies. Either researchers become more diligent, because of the high-stakes nature of the research, or the time pressure may lead to cutting corners and lower quality output. In this study, we conducted a natural experiment to compare the prevalence of incorrectly reported statistics in a stratified random sample of COVID-19 preprints and a matched sample of non-COVID-19 preprints. Our results show that the overall prevalence of incorrectly reported statistics is 9-10%, but frequentist as well as Bayesian hypothesis tests show no difference in the number of statistical inconsistencies between COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 preprints. In conclusion, the literature suggests that COVID-19 research may on average have more methodological problems than non-COVID-19 research, but our results show that there is no difference in the statistical reporting quality.

No evidence of important difference in summary treatment effects between COVID-19 preprints and peer-reviewed publications: a meta-epidemiological study.

OBJECTIVES: Preprints became a major source of research communication during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate whether summary treatment effect estimates differ between preprint and peer-reviewed journal trials. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A meta-epidemiological study. Data were derived from the COVID-NMA living systematic review (covid-nma.com) up to July 20, 2022. We identified all meta-analyses evaluating pharmacological treatments vs. standard of care or placebo for patients with COVID-19 that included at least one preprint and one peer-reviewed journal article. Difference in effect estimates between preprint and peer-reviewed journal trials were estimated by the ratio of odds ratio (ROR); ROR <1 indicated larger effects in preprint trials. RESULTS: Thirty-seven meta-analyses including 114 trials (44 preprints and 70 peer-reviewed publications) were selected. The median number of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) per meta-analysis was 2 (interquartile range [IQR], 2-4; maximum, 11), median sample size of RCTs was 199 (IQR, 99-478). Overall, there was no statistically significant difference in summary effect estimates between preprint and peer-reviewed journal trials (ROR, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.71-1.09; I2 = 17.8%; τ2 = 0.06). CONCLUSION: We did not find an important difference between summary treatment effects of preprints and summary treatment effects of peer-reviewed publications. Systematic reviewers and guideline developers should assess preprint inclusion individually, accounting for risk of bias and completeness of reporting.

The rise of preprints in earth sciences.

The rate of science information's spread has accelerated in recent years. In this context, it appears that many scientific disciplines are beginning to recognize the value and possibility of sharing open access (OA) online manuscripts in their preprint form. Preprints are academic papers that are published but have not yet been evaluated by peers. They have existed in research at least since the 1960s and the creation of ArXiv in physics and mathematics. Since then, preprint platforms-which can be publisher- or community-driven, profit or not for profit, and based on proprietary or free and open source software-have gained popularity in many fields (for example, bioRxiv for the biological sciences). Today, there are many platforms that are either disciplinary-specific or cross-domain, with exponential development over the past ten years. Preprints as a whole still make up a very small portion of scholarly publishing, but a large group of early adopters are testing out these value-adding tools across a much wider range of disciplines than in the past. In this opinion article, we provide perspective on the three main options available for earth scientists, namely EarthArXiv, ESSOAr/ESS Open Archive and EGUsphere.

Comparison of COVID-19 Preprint and Peer-Reviewed Versions of Studies on Therapies for Critically Ill Patients.

PURPOSE: Significant increases in the volume of preprint articles due to the COVID-19 pandemic, we examined the reliability of preprint articles compared to their peer-reviewed publications. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Preprint articles evaluating experimental studies of select treatment options (anticoagulation, dexamethasone, hydroxychloroquine, remdesivir, and tocilizumab) for COVID-19 in the critically ill, available in a peer-reviewed publication were screened for inclusion within Altmetric (n = 2040). A total of 40 articles met inclusion criteria, with 21 being randomly selected for evaluation. The primary outcome of this evaluation was a change in a study's reported primary outcome or statistical significance between preprint and peer-reviewed articles. Secondary outcomes included changes in primary/secondary outcome effect size and change in study conclusion. RESULTS: One article (4.8%, 95% CI 0.12%-23.8%) had a change in the primary outcome. Seven articles (33.3%, 95% CI 14.6%-57.0%) had a change in the primary outcome's effect measure. Five studies (23.8%, 95% CI 8.2%-47.2%) had changes in statistical significance of at least one secondary outcome. Four studies (19.0%, 95% CI 5.4%-41.9%) had a change in study conclusion. CONCLUSIONS: In preprint articles of COVID-19 treatments, the provided primary outcome is generally reliable, while interpretation of secondary outcomes should be made with caution, while awaiting completion of the peer-review process.

Current concerns on journal article with preprint: Anesthesia and Pain Medicine perspectives.

Preprints are preliminary research reports that have not yet been peer-reviewed. They have been widely adopted to promote the timely dissemination of research across many scientific fields. In August 1991, Paul Ginsparg launched an electronic bulletin board intended to serve a few hundred colleagues working in a subfield of theoretical high-energy physics, thus launching arXiv, the first and largest preprint platform. Additional preprint servers have since been implemented in different academic fields, such as BioRxiv (2013, Biology; www.biorxiv.org) and medRxiv (2019, Health Science; www.medrxiv.org). While preprint availability has made valuable research resources accessible to the general public, thus bridging the gap between academic and non-academic audiences, it has also facilitated the spread of unsupported conclusions through various media channels. Issues surrounding the preprint policies of a journal must be addressed, ultimately, by editors and include the acceptance of preprint manuscripts, allowing the citation of preprints, maintaining a double-blind peer review process, changes to the preprint's content and authors' list, scoop priorities, commenting on preprints, and preventing the influence of social media. Editors must be able to deal with these issues adequately, to maintain the scientific integrity of their journal. In this review, the history, current status, and strengths and weaknesses of preprints as well as ongoing concerns regarding journal articles with preprints are discussed. An optimal approach to preprints is suggested for editorial board members, authors, and researchers.

Rapid, accurate publication and dissemination of clinical trial results: benefits and challenges.

Large-scale clinical trials are essential in cardiology and require rapid, accurate publication, and dissemination. Whereas conference presentations, press releases, and social media disseminate information quickly and often receive considerable coverage by mainstream and healthcare media, they lack detail, may emphasize selected data, and can be open to misinterpretation. Preprint servers speed access to research manuscripts while awaiting acceptance for publication by a journal, but these articles are not formally peer-reviewed and sometimes overstate the findings. Publication of trial results in a major journal is very demanding but the use of existing checklists can help accelerate the process. In case of rejection, procedures such as easing formatting requirements and possibly carrying over peer-review to other journals could speed resubmission. Secondary publications can help maximize benefits from clinical trials; publications of secondary endpoints and subgroup analyses further define treatment effects and the patient populations most likely to benefit. These rely on data access, and although data sharing is becoming more common, many challenges remain. Beyond publication in medical journals, there is a need for wider knowledge dissemination to maximize impact on clinical practice. This might be facilitated through plain language summary publications. Social media, websites, mainstream news outlets, and other publications, although not peer-reviewed, are important sources of medical information for both the public and for clinicians. This underscores the importance of ensuring that the information is understandable, accessible, balanced, and trustworthy. This report is based on discussions held on December 2021, at the 18th Global Cardiovascular Clinical Trialists meeting, involving a panel of editors of some of the top medical journals, as well as members of the lay press, industry, and clinical trialists.

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.

Current concerns on journal article with preprint: Korean Journal of Internal Medicine perspectives.

Preprints are preliminary research reports that have not yet been peer-reviewed. They have been widely adopted to promote the timely dissemination of research across many scientific fields. In August 1991, Paul Ginsparg launched an electronic bulletin board intended to serve a few hundred colleagues working in a subfield of theoretical high-energy physics, thus launching arXiv, the first and largest preprint platform. Additional preprint servers have since been implemented in different academic fields, such as BioRxiv (2013, Biology; www.biorxiv.org) and medRxiv (2019, Health Science; www.medrxiv.org). While preprint availability has made valuable research resources accessible to the general public, thus bridging the gap between academic and non-academic audiences, it has also facilitated the spread of unsupported conclusions through various media channels. Issues surrounding the preprint policies of a journal must be addressed, ultimately, by editors and include the acceptance of preprint manuscripts, allowing the citation of preprints, maintaining a double-blind peer review process, changes to the preprint's content and authors' list, scoop priorities, commenting on preprints, and preventing the influence of social media. Editors must be able to deal with these issues adequately, to maintain the scientific integrity of their journal. In this review, the history, current status, and strengths and weaknesses of preprints as well as ongoing concerns regarding journal articles with preprints are discussed. An optimal approach to preprints is suggested for editorial board members, authors, and researchers.

Searching and Evaluating Publications and Preprints Using Europe PMC.

In the field of life sciences there is a growing need for literature analysis tools that help scientists tackle information overload. Europe PubMed Central (Europe PMC), a partner of PubMed Central (PMC; National Library of Medicine, 2022), is an open access database of over 41 million life science publications and preprints, enriched with supporting data, reviews, protocols, and other relevant resources. Europe PMC is a trusted repository of choice for many life science funders (Europe PMC, 2022a), offering a suite of innovative search tools that allow users to search and evaluate the literature, including finding highly cited articles, preprints with community peer reviews, or papers referencing a proteomics dataset in the figure legend. In addition, Europe PMC utilizes text-mining to help researchers identify key terms and find data and evidence in the literature. First-time users often do not utilize the wealth of tools Europe PMC offers and can feel overwhelmed about how to perform the most effective search. This protocol, describing how to search and evaluate publications and preprints using Europe PMC, demonstrates how to carry out more efficient and effective literature searches using the tools provided by Europe PMC. This includes discovering the latest findings on a research topic, following research from a specific author, journal, or preprint server, exploring literature on a new method, expanding your reading list with relevant articles, as well as accessing and evaluating publications and preprints of interest. © 2023 EMBL-EBI. Current Protocols published by Wiley Periodicals LLC. Basic Protocol 1: Finding articles and preprints on a topic of interest Basic Protocol 2: Accessing an article Basic Protocol 3: Browsing the article Basic Protocol 4: Evaluating the article Basic Protocol 5: Refining search results Basic Protocol 6: Finding research by author Basic Protocol 7: Finding a specific article Basic Protocol 8: Finding information about a methodology Basic Protocol 9: Finding evidence of biological interactions, relations, and modifications Basic Protocol 10: Finding data behind a publication Basic Protocol 11: Expanding a reading list and building a bibliography Basic Protocol 12: Staying on top of the current literature.

Postprints-to-preprints linkage to enhance access to scientific literature.

Preprint servers can enhance the access to scientific literature by bidirectional linkage from published papers (postprints) to their counterpart preprint versions. The current state of linkage is to link preprints to their corresponding postprints (peer-reviewed articles published in journals). Here, I suggest an opposite automated linkage, from postprints to preprints wherever and whenever preprints are posted on a preprint server. Such connection from paid postprint versions to free preprint versions makes sense as it removes the barriers to get access to paywalled publications freely and easily.

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.

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.