1
|
Malinda RR, Mishra D, Bajaj R, Khaliduzzaman A. Exploring the current dynamics of preprints. Curr Med Res Opin 2024:1-9. [PMID: 38700241 DOI: 10.1080/03007995.2024.2351144] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/14/2024] [Accepted: 04/30/2024] [Indexed: 05/05/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Raj Rajeshwar Malinda
- Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology Delhi, New Delhi 110020, India
- University of Hyogo, Kobe, Hyogo Prefecture 651-2197, Japan
| | | | - Ruchika Bajaj
- Cardiovascular Research Institute, University of California San Francisco, California, USA
| | - Alin Khaliduzzaman
- Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Illinois 61801, USA
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Pearce-Smith N, Farrow E, Robinson J, Mahon B, McGillycuddy C, Savage K. Facilitating knowledge transfer to policy makers and front-line workers during a pandemic: Implementation, impact and lessons learned. Health Info Libr J 2024. [PMID: 38468365 DOI: 10.1111/hir.12523] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 08/30/2023] [Accepted: 02/20/2024] [Indexed: 03/13/2024]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Stakeholders working on the COVID-19 pandemic response needed access to evidence, requiring a systematic approach to identify and disseminate relevant research. OBJECTIVES Outline the stages of development of a COVID-19 Literature Digest; demonstrate the impact the Digest had on decision-making and knowledge gain; identify the lessons learned. METHODS A standardised process was developed to identify and select papers. The main sources for content were PubMed, bioRxiv and medRxiv. A shared EndNote library was used to deduplicate and organise papers. Three user surveys obtained feedback from subscribers to determine if the Digest remained valuable, and explore the benefits to individuals. RESULTS 40-60 papers were summarised each week. 211 Digests were produced from March 2020 to March 2022, with around 10,000 papers included altogether. Survey results suggest benefits of the Digest were gaining new knowledge, saving time and contributing to evidence-based decision making. DISCUSSION Digest procedures constantly evolved and were adapted in response to survey feedback. Lessons identified: learn from failure, communication is key, measure your impact, work collaboratively, reflect and be flexible. CONCLUSION The Digest was successfully produced within the limits of available resource. The learning from this Digest will inform evidence monitoring, selection and dissemination for future health crises.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Emma Farrow
- UK Health Security Agency (UKHSA), London, UK
| | | | | | | | | |
Collapse
|
3
|
Benjamin J, Wanjalla CN, Gaddy JA, Kirabo A, Williams EM, Hinton A. Reimagining bioRxiv and preprint servers as platforms for academic learning. J Cell Physiol 2024. [PMID: 38457273 DOI: 10.1002/jcp.31234] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/12/2024] [Revised: 02/16/2024] [Accepted: 02/20/2024] [Indexed: 03/10/2024]
Abstract
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.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jazmine Benjamin
- Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Celestine N Wanjalla
- Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Jennifer A Gaddy
- Department of Medicine Health and Society, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
- Department of Pathology, Microbiology and Immunology, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
- Department of Veterans Affairs, Tennessee Valley Healthcare Systems, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Annet Kirabo
- Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| | - Edith M Williams
- Department of Public Health Sciences (SMD), University of Rochester, Rochester, New York, USA
| | - Antentor Hinton
- Department of Molecular Physiology and Biophysics, Vanderbilt University, Nashville, Tennessee, USA
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Luo K, Yang Y, Teo HH. The Asymmetric Influence of Emotion in the Sharing of COVID-19 Science on Social Media: Observational Study. JMIR Infodemiology 2022; 2:e37331. [PMID: 36536762 PMCID: PMC9749104 DOI: 10.2196/37331] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/15/2022] [Revised: 05/31/2022] [Accepted: 11/05/2022] [Indexed: 06/17/2023]
Abstract
BACKGROUND Unlike past pandemics, COVID-19 is different to the extent that there is an unprecedented surge in both peer-reviewed and preprint research publications, and important scientific conversations about it are rampant on online social networks, even among laypeople. Clearly, this new phenomenon of scientific discourse is not well understood in that we do not know the diffusion patterns of peer-reviewed publications vis-à-vis preprints and what makes them viral. OBJECTIVE This paper aimed to examine how the emotionality of messages about preprint and peer-reviewed publications shapes their diffusion through online social networks in order to inform health science communicators' and policy makers' decisions on how to promote reliable sharing of crucial pandemic science on social media. METHODS We collected a large sample of Twitter discussions of early (January to May 2020) COVID-19 medical research outputs, which were tracked by Altmetric, in both preprint servers and peer-reviewed journals, and conducted statistical analyses to examine emotional valence, specific emotions, and the role of scientists as content creators in influencing the retweet rate. RESULTS Our large-scale analyses (n=243,567) revealed that scientific publication tweets with positive emotions were transmitted faster than those with negative emotions, especially for messages about preprints. Our results also showed that scientists' participation in social media as content creators could accentuate the positive emotion effects on the sharing of peer-reviewed publications. CONCLUSIONS Clear communication of critical science is crucial in the nascent stage of a pandemic. By revealing the emotional dynamics in the social media sharing of COVID-19 scientific outputs, our study offers scientists and policy makers an avenue to shape the discussion and diffusion of emerging scientific publications through manipulation of the emotionality of tweets. Scientists could use emotional language to promote the diffusion of more reliable peer-reviewed articles, while avoiding using too much positive emotional language in social media messages about preprints if they think that it is too early to widely communicate the preprint (not peer reviewed) data to the public.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Kai Luo
- National University of Singapore Singapore Singapore
| | - Yang Yang
- University of Warwick Coventry United Kingdom
| | - Hock Hai Teo
- National University of Singapore Singapore Singapore
| |
Collapse
|
5
|
Fleerackers A, Riedlinger M, Moorhead L, Ahmed R, Alperin JP. Communicating Scientific Uncertainty in an Age of COVID-19: An Investigation into the Use of Preprints by Digital Media Outlets. Health Commun 2022; 37:726-738. [PMID: 33390033 DOI: 10.1080/10410236.2020.1864892] [Citation(s) in RCA: 30] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 06/12/2023]
Abstract
In this article, we investigate the surge in use of COVID-19-related preprints by media outlets. Journalists are a main source of reliable public health information during crises and, until recently, journalists have been reluctant to cover preprints because of the associated scientific uncertainty. Yet, uploads of COVID-19 preprints and their uptake by online media have outstripped that of preprints about any other topic. Using an innovative approach combining altmetrics methods with content analysis, we identified a diversity of outlets covering COVID-19-related preprints during the early months of the pandemic, including specialist medical news outlets, traditional news media outlets, and aggregators. We found a ubiquity of hyperlinks as citations and a multiplicity of framing devices for highlighting the scientific uncertainty associated with COVID-19 preprints. These devices were rarely used consistently (e.g., mentioning that the study was a preprint, unreviewed, preliminary, and/or in need of verification). About half of the stories we analyzed contained framing devices emphasizing uncertainty. Outlets in our sample were much less likely to identify the research they mentioned as preprint research, compared to identifying it as simply "research." This work has significant implications for public health communication within the changing media landscape. While current best practices in public health risk communication promote identifying and promoting trustworthy sources of information, the uptake of preprint research by online media presents new challenges. At the same time, it provides new opportunities for fostering greater awareness of the scientific uncertainty associated with health research findings.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Laura Moorhead
- Journalism, College of Liberal and Creative Arts, San Francisco State University
| | - Rukhsana Ahmed
- Department of Communication, University at Albany, State University of New York
| | | |
Collapse
|
6
|
Wolf JF, MacKay L, Haworth SE, Cossette M, Dedato MN, Young KB, Elliott CI, Oomen RA. Preprinting is positively associated with early career researcher status in ecology and evolution. Ecol Evol 2021; 11:13624-13632. [PMID: 34707804 PMCID: PMC8525114 DOI: 10.1002/ece3.8106] [Citation(s) in RCA: 5] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.7] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 04/02/2021] [Revised: 08/08/2021] [Accepted: 08/24/2021] [Indexed: 01/29/2023] Open
Abstract
The usage of preprint servers in ecology and evolution is increasing, allowing research to be rapidly disseminated and available through open access at no cost. Early Career Researchers (ECRs) often have limited experience with the peer review process, which can be challenging when trying to build publication records and demonstrate research ability for funding opportunities, scholarships, grants, or faculty positions. ECRs face different challenges relative to researchers with permanent positions and established research programs. These challenges might also vary according to institution size and country, which are factors associated with the availability of funding for open access journals. We predicted that the career stage and institution size impact the relative usage of preprint servers among researchers in ecology and evolution. Using data collected from 500 articles (100 from each of two open access journals, two closed access journals, and a preprint server), we showed that ECRs generated more preprints relative to non-ECRs, for both first and last authors. We speculate that this pattern is reflective of the advantages of quick and open access research that is disproportionately beneficial to ECRs. There is also a marginal association between first author, institution size, and preprint usage, whereby the number of preprints tends to increase with institution size for ECRs. The United States and United Kingdom contributed the greatest number of preprints by ECRs, whereas non-Western countries contributed relatively fewer preprints. This empirical evidence that preprint usage varies with the career stage, institution size, and country helps to identify barriers surrounding large-scale adoption of preprinting in ecology and evolution.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Jesse F. Wolf
- Department of Environmental and Life SciencesTrent UniversityPeterboroughONCanada
| | - Layla MacKay
- Department of Forensic ScienceTrent UniversityPeterboroughONCanada
| | - Sarah E. Haworth
- Department of Environmental and Life SciencesTrent UniversityPeterboroughONCanada
| | | | - Morgan N. Dedato
- Department of Environmental and Life SciencesTrent UniversityPeterboroughONCanada
| | - Kiana B. Young
- Department of Environmental and Life SciencesTrent UniversityPeterboroughONCanada
| | - Colin I. Elliott
- Department of Forensic ScienceTrent UniversityPeterboroughONCanada
| | - Rebekah A. Oomen
- Department of BiosciencesCentre for Ecological and Evolutionary SynthesisUniversity of OsloOsloNorway
- Department of Natural SciencesCentre for Coastal ResearchUniversity of AgderKristiansandNorway
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Molldrem S, Hussain MI, Smith AKJ. Open science, COVID-19, and the news: Exploring controversies in the circulation of early SARS-CoV-2 genomic epidemiology research. Glob Public Health 2021; 16:1468-1481. [PMID: 33661076 PMCID: PMC8338786 DOI: 10.1080/17441692.2021.1896766] [Citation(s) in RCA: 1] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/21/2020] [Accepted: 02/22/2021] [Indexed: 01/15/2023]
Abstract
Some early English language news coverage of COVID-19 epidemiology focused on studies that examined how SARS-CoV-2 (the coronavirus that causes COVID-19) was evolving at the genetic level. The use of phylogenetic methods to analyse pathogen genetic sequence data to understand disease dynamics is called 'molecular' or 'genomic' epidemiology. Many research groups in this subfield utilise open science practices, which can involve the circulation of early unreviewed findings on publicly-accessible venues online. From March to May 2020, media outlets covered early SARS-CoV-2 genomic studies that claimed to have discovered types of SARS-CoV-2 that had mutated to be more transmissible. We use methods from Science and Technology Studies (STS) to examine three cumulative cases in which unripe facts about SARS-CoV-2 genomics moved out of scientific publics and into mainstream news. The three cases are: (1) 'A More "Aggressive" Strain of SARS-CoV-2?', (2) 'Eight SARS-CoV-2 Strains?', and (3) 'A "More Contagious," "Mutant" Strain?' In each case, findings were called into question and reporters' framing was overly sensational. We interpret the COVID-19 pandemic as a 'stress-test' for open science practices, and argue that it is important for stakeholders to understand changes in scientific publication and dissemination processes in the wake of the pandemic.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Stephen Molldrem
- Department of Anthropology, University of California, Irvine, CA, USA
| | | | - Anthony K J Smith
- Centre for Social Research in Health, UNSW Sydney, Sydney, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
8
|
Besançon L, Peiffer-Smadja N, Segalas C, Jiang H, Masuzzo P, Smout C, Billy E, Deforet M, Leyrat C. Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Med Res Methodol 2021; 21:117. [PMID: 34090351 PMCID: PMC8179078 DOI: 10.1186/s12874-021-01304-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 46] [Impact Index Per Article: 15.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/22/2021] [Accepted: 05/04/2021] [Indexed: 11/10/2022] Open
Abstract
In the last decade Open Science principles have been successfully advocated for and are being slowly adopted in different research communities. In response to the COVID-19 pandemic many publishers and researchers have sped up their adoption of Open Science practices, sometimes embracing them fully and sometimes partially or in a sub-optimal manner. In this article, we express concerns about the violation of some of the Open Science principles and its potential impact on the quality of research output. We provide evidence of the misuses of these principles at different stages of the scientific process. We call for a wider adoption of Open Science practices in the hope that this work will encourage a broader endorsement of Open Science principles and serve as a reminder that science should always be a rigorous process, reliable and transparent, especially in the context of a pandemic where research findings are being translated into practice even more rapidly. We provide all data and scripts at https://osf.io/renxy/ .
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lonni Besançon
- Faculty of Information Technology, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
- Media and Information Technology, Linköping University, Norrköping, Sweden
| | - Nathan Peiffer-Smadja
- Université de Paris, IAME, INSERM, Paris, F-75018 France
- National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit in Healthcare Associated Infections and Antimicrobial Resistance, Imperial College London, London, United Kingdom
| | - Corentin Segalas
- Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| | - Haiting Jiang
- School of Health Policy and Management, Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China
| | - Paola Masuzzo
- IGDORE, Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education, Box 1074, Kristinehöjdsgatan 9A, Gothenburg, 412 82 Sweden
| | - Cooper Smout
- IGDORE, Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research and Education, Box 1074, Kristinehöjdsgatan 9A, Gothenburg, 412 82 Sweden
| | | | - Maxime Deforet
- Sorbonne Université, CNRS, Institut de Biologie Paris-Seine (IBPS), Laboratoire Jean Perrin (LJP), Paris, France
| | - Clémence Leyrat
- Department of Medical Statistics, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
- Inequalities in Cancer Outcomes Network, Department of Non-Communicable Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom
| |
Collapse
|
9
|
Urbano C, Tafalla S, Borrego Á, Abadal E. Preprints as an alternative to conference proceedings: A hands‐on experience at
EDICIC
Iberian Meeting 2019. Learned Publishing 2021. [DOI: 10.1002/leap.1402] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 11/10/2022]
Affiliation(s)
- Cristóbal Urbano
- Departament de Biblioteconomia, Documentació i Comunicació Audiovisual & Centre de Recerca en Informació, Comunicació i Cultura Universitat de Barcelona Barcelona Spain
| | - Sara Tafalla
- Comité Organizador EDICIC 2019 Barcelona Secretaria Técnica Barcelona Spain
| | - Ángel Borrego
- Departament de Biblioteconomia, Documentació i Comunicació Audiovisual & Centre de Recerca en Informació, Comunicació i Cultura Universitat de Barcelona Barcelona Spain
| | - Ernest Abadal
- Departament de Biblioteconomia, Documentació i Comunicació Audiovisual & Centre de Recerca en Informació, Comunicació i Cultura Universitat de Barcelona Barcelona Spain
| |
Collapse
|
10
|
Khatter A, Naughton M, Dambha-Miller H, Redmond P. Is rapid scientific publication also high quality? Bibliometric analysis of highly disseminated COVID-19 research papers. Learn Publ 2021; 34:568-577. [PMID: 34226800 PMCID: PMC8242915 DOI: 10.1002/leap.1403] [Citation(s) in RCA: 15] [Impact Index Per Article: 5.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [What about the content of this article? (0)] [Affiliation(s)] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/14/2021] [Revised: 03/25/2021] [Accepted: 04/16/2021] [Indexed: 12/15/2022]
Abstract
The impact of COVID-19 has underlined the need for reliable information to guide clinical practice and policy. This urgency has to be balanced against disruption to journal handling capacity and the continued need to ensure scientific rigour. We examined the reporting quality of highly disseminated COVID-19 research papers using a bibliometric analysis examining reporting quality and risk of bias (RoB) amongst 250 top scoring Altmetric Attention Score (AAS) COVID-19 research papers between January and April 2020. Method-specific RoB tools were used to assess quality. After exclusions, 84 studies from 44 journals were included. Forty-three (51%) were case series/studies, and only one was an randomized controlled trial. Most authors were from institutions based in China (n = 44, 52%). The median AAS and impact factor was 2015 (interquartile range [IQR] 1,105-4,051.5) and 12.8 (IQR 5-44.2) respectively. Nine studies (11%) utilized a formal reporting framework, 62 (74%) included a funding statement, and 41 (49%) were at high RoB. This review of the most widely disseminated COVID-19 studies highlights a preponderance of low-quality case series with few research papers adhering to good standards of reporting. It emphasizes the need for cautious interpretation of research and the increasingly vital responsibility that journals have in ensuring high-quality publications.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Amandeep Khatter
- School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences King's College London London UK
| | - Michael Naughton
- School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences King's College London London UK
| | - Hajira Dambha-Miller
- School of Primary Care Population Sciences and Medical Education (PPM) University of Southampton UK
| | - Patrick Redmond
- School of Population Health and Environmental Sciences King's College London London UK.,Department of General Practice Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland Dublin Ireland
| |
Collapse
|
11
|
Affiliation(s)
- Bruno Bonnechère
- Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral and Clinical Neurosciences, University of Cambridge, Cambridge, United Kingdom.,Public Health School, Université Libre de Bruxelles, Brussels, Belgium
| |
Collapse
|
12
|
Affiliation(s)
- Subhradip Karmakar
- Room 3020, Department of Biochemistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India
| | - Ruby Dhar
- Room 3020, Department of Biochemistry, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, New Delhi 110029, India
| | - Babban Jee
- Department of Health Research, Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, Government of India, New Delhi, India
| |
Collapse
|
13
|
Abstract
Background: Since 2013, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of preprint servers available online. To date, little is known about the position of researchers, funders, research performing organisations and other stakeholders with respect to this fast-paced landscape. In this article, we explore the benefits and challenges of preprint posting, along with issues such as infrastructure and financial sustainability. We also discuss the definition of a 'preprint' in different communities, and the impact this has on further uptake. Methods: This study is based on 38 detailed semi-structured interviews of key stakeholders based on a purposive heterogeneous sampling approach. Interviews were undertaken between October 2018 and January 2019. These were recorded, transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis to identify trends. Interview questions were designed based on Innovation Diffusion Theory, which is also used to interpret the results of this study. Results: Our study is the first using empirical data to understand the new wave of preprint servers and found that early and fast dissemination is the most appealing feature of the practice. The main concerns are related to the lack of quality assurance and the 'Ingelfinger rule'. We identified trust as an essential enabler of preprint posting and stress the enabling role of Twitter in showcasing preprints and enabling comments on these. Conclusions: The preprints landscape is evolving fast and disciplinary communities are at different stages in the innovation diffusion process. The landscape is characterised by significant experimentation, which leads to the conclusion that a one-size-fits-all approach to preprints is not feasible. Cooperation and active engagement between the stakeholders involved will play an important role in the future. In our paper, we share questions for the further development of the preprints landscape, with the most important being whether preprint posting will develop as a publisher- or researcher-centric practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | - Rob Johnson
- Research Consulting Limited, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, UK
| | - Stephen Pinfield
- Information School, University of Sheffield, Sheffield, S1 4DP, UK
| | - Emma Richens
- Research Consulting Limited, Nottingham, NG7 2TU, UK
| |
Collapse
|