Publication and Impact of Preprints Included in the First 100 Editions of the CDC COVID-19 Science Update: Content Analysis

COVID-19 Response of the Journal Public Health Reports (PHR), March 2020-March 2023

OBJECTIVE

Publication science is the scholarly study of various aspects of the academic publishing process. Its applications to COVID-19 literature have been limited. Here, we describe COVID-19 submissions to, and resulting articles published by, the journal Public Health Reports (PHR), an important resource for US public health practice.

METHODS

We reviewed PHR's COVID-19 submissions and articles published between March 27, 2020, and March 27, 2023. We coded each article for article type, author affiliation, the categories listed in PHR's call for COVID-19 papers, and the public health emergency preparedness and response capabilities from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

RESULTS

During the study period, PHR received 1545 COVID-19 submissions and published 190 of those articles in a collection, COVID-19 Response. The COVID-19 Response collection included 102 research articles, 29 case study/practice articles, and 24 commentaries. The corresponding author of more than half (52.1%; n = 99) of the articles was affiliated with academia. By the categories listed in PHR's call for COVID-19 papers, 51 articles addressed health disparities, 38 addressed public health surveillance, and 34 addressed COVID-19 vaccination. By the CDC public health emergency preparedness and response capabilities, 87 articles addressed public health surveillance and epidemiologic investigation, 38 addressed community preparedness, and 32 addressed community recovery. The percentage of articles focused on policy/law was higher early in the pandemic (2020-2021) than later (2022-2023) (9.5% vs <3.0%). During the latter period, articles largely focused on vaccination (12.8%) and contact tracing (10.6%).

CONCLUSIONS

Articles published in PHR's COVID-19 Response collection covered a broad range of topics and were authored by contributors from diverse organizations. Our characterization of the COVID-19 output of a representative US public health practice journal can help academic publishing better address informational needs of public health responders.

Phase 1 of the National Institutes of Health Preprint Pilot: Testing the viability of making preprints discoverable in PubMed Central and PubMed

Introduction

The National Library of Medicine (NLM) launched a Pilot in June 2020 to: 1) explore the feasibility and utility of adding preprints to PubMed Central (PMC) and making them discoverable in PubMed, and 2) to support accelerated discoverability of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-supported research without compromising user trust in NLM's widely used literature services.

Methods

The first phase of the Pilot focused on archiving preprints reporting NIH-supported SARS-CoV-2 virus and COVID-19 research. To launch Phase 1, NLM identified eligible preprint servers and developed processes for identifying NIH-supported preprints within scope in these servers. Processes were also developed for the ingest and conversion of preprints in PMC and to send corresponding records to PubMed. User interfaces were modified for display of preprint records. NLM collected data on the preprints ingested and discovery of preprint records in PMC and PubMed and engaged users through focus groups and a survey to obtain direct feedback on the Pilot and perceptions of preprints.

Results

Between June 2020 and June 2022, NLM added more than 3,300 preprint records to PMC (viewed 4 million times) and PubMed (viewed 3 million times) Nearly one-quarter of preprints in the Pilot were not associated with a peer-reviewed published journal article. User feedback revealed that the inclusion of preprints did not have a notable impact on trust in PMC or PubMed.

Discussion

NIH-supported preprints can be identified and added to PMC and PubMed without disrupting existing operations processes. Additionally, inclusion of preprints in PMC and PubMed accelerates discovery of NIH research without reducing trust in NLM literature services. Phase 1 of the Pilot provided a useful testbed for studying NIH investigator preprint posting practices, as well as knowledge gaps among user groups, during the COVID-19 public health emergency, an unusual time with heightened interest in immediate access to research results.

Making science public: a review of journalists' use of Open Access research

Science journalists are uniquely positioned to increase the societal impact of open research outputs by contextualizing and communicating findings in ways that highlight their relevance and implications for non-specialist audiences. Yet, it is unclear to what degree journalists use open research outputs, such as open access publications or preprints, in their reporting; what factors motivate or constrain this use; and how the recent surge in openly available research seen during the COVID-19 pandemic has affected this. This article examines these questions through a review of relevant literature published from 2018 onwards-particularly literature relating to the COVID-19 pandemic-as well as seminal articles outside the search dates. We find that research that explicitly examines journalists' engagement with open access publications or preprints is scarce, with existing literature mostly addressing the topic tangentially or as a secondary concern, rather than a primary focus. Still, the limited body of evidence points to several factors that may hamper journalists' use of these outputs and thus warrant further exploration. These include an overreliance on traditional criteria for evaluating scientific quality; concerns about the trustworthiness of open research outputs; and challenges using and verifying the findings. We also find that, while the COVID-19 pandemic encouraged journalists to explore open research outputs such as preprints, the extent to which these explorations will become established journalistic practices remains unclear. Furthermore, we note that current research is overwhelmingly authored and focused on the Global North, and the United States specifically. We conclude with recommendations for future research that attend to issues of equity and diversity, and more explicitly examine the intersections of open access and science journalism.

Full publication of preprint articles in prevention research: an analysis of publication proportions and results consistency

There is concern that preprint articles will lead to an increase in the amount of scientifically invalid work available. The objectives of this study were to determine the proportion of prevention preprints published within 12 months, the consistency of the effect estimates and conclusions between preprint and published articles, and the reasons for the nonpublication of preprints. Of the 329 prevention preprints that met our eligibility criteria, almost half (48.9%) were published in a peer-reviewed journal within 12 months of being posted. While 16.8% published preprints showed some change in the magnitude of the primary outcome effect estimate, 4.4% were classified as having a major change. The style or wording of the conclusion changed in 42.2%, the content in 3.1%. Preprints on chemoprevention, with a cross-sectional design, and with public and noncommercial funding had the highest probabilities of publication. The main reasons for the nonpublication of preprints were journal rejection or lack of time. The reliability of preprint articles for evidence-based decision-making is questionable. Less than half of the preprint articles on prevention research are published in a peer-reviewed journal within 12 months, and significant changes in effect sizes and/or conclusions are still possible during the peer-review process.