Search

This paper provides insights into the paper submission and review processes and the possible reasons behind paper acceptance or rejection. The main target of this paper is emerging researchers who are writing their first scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. This manuscript gives clues on how to select a journal and what a preprint is, introduces authorship and the roles of editors, reviewers, and publishers, sheds light on the editorial process, and briefly introduces some ethical issues arising in scholarly publishing. The content is based on a course offered annually to doctoral students at the University of Milan and keeps into account frequently asked questions. The authors of this paper are an editor-in-chief and an associated editor of scientific journals, respectively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Preprints are scientific articles that have not undergone the peer-review process. They allow the latest evidence to be rapidly shared, however it is unclear whether they can be confidently used for decision-making during a public health emergency. This study aimed to compare the data and quality of preprints released during the first four months of the 2022 mpox outbreak to their published versions. Methods: Eligible preprints (n = 76) posted between May to August 2022 were identified through an established mpox literature database and followed to July 2024 for changes in publication status. Quality of preprints and published studies was assessed by two independent reviewers to evaluate changes in quality, using validated tools that were available for the study design (n = 33). Tools included the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale; Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies 2 (QUADAS-2); and JBI Critical Appraisal Checklists. The questions in each tool led to an overall quality assessment of high quality (no concerns with study design, conduct, and/or analysis), moderate quality (minor concerns) or low quality (several concerns). Changes in data (e.g. methods, outcomes, results) for preprint-published pairs (n = 60) were assessed by one reviewer and verified by a second. Results: Preprints and published versions that could be evaluated for quality (n = 25 pairs) were mostly assessed as low quality. Minimal to no change in quality from preprint to published was identified: all observational studies (10/10), most case series (6/7) and all surveillance data analyses (3/3) had no change in overall quality, while some diagnostic test accuracy studies (3/5) improved or worsened their quality assessment scores. Among all pairs (n = 60), outcomes were often added in the published version (58%) and less commonly removed (18%). Numerical results changed from preprint to published in 53% of studies, however most of these studies (22/32) had changes that were minor and did not impact main conclusions of the study. Conclusions: This study suggests the minimal changes in quality, results and main conclusions from preprint to published versions supports the use of preprints, and the use of the same critical evaluation tools on preprints as applied to published studies, in decision-making during a public health emergency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Motivation Integrating information from data sources representing different study designs has the potential to strengthen evidence in population health research. However, this concept of evidence "triangulation" presents a number of challenges for systematically identifying and integrating relevant information. These include the harmonization of heterogenous evidence with common semantic concepts and properties, as well as the priortization of the retrieved evidence for triangulation with the question of interest. Results We present Annotated Semantic Queries (ASQ), a natural language query interface to the integrated biomedical entities and epidemiological evidence in EpiGraphDB, which enables users to extract "claims" from a piece of unstructured text, and then investigate the evidence that could either support, contradict the claims, or offer additional information to the query. This approach has the potential to support the rapid review of preprints, grant applications, conference abstracts, and articles submitted for peer review. ASQ implements strategies to harmonize biomedical entities in different taxonomies and evidence from different sources, to facilitate evidence triangulation and interpretation. Availability and implementation ASQ is openly available at https://asq.epigraphdb.org and its source code is available at https://github.com/mrcieu/epigraphdb-asq under GPL-3.0 license. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This guide outlines general issues in searching for studies; describes the main sources of potential studies; and discusses how to plan the search process, design, and carry out search strategies, manage references found during the search process and document and report the search process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract This paper provides insights into the paper submission and review processes and the possible reasons behind paper acceptance or rejection. The main target of this paper is emerging researchers who are writing their first scientific papers in peer-reviewed journals. This manuscript gives clues on how to select a journal and what a preprint is, introduces authorship and the roles of editors, reviewers, and publishers, sheds light on the editorial process, and briefly introduces some ethical issues arising in scholarly publishing. The content is based on a course offered annually to doctoral students at the University of Milan and keeps into account frequently asked questions. The authors of this paper are an editor-in-chief and an associated editor of scientific journals, respectively.

This study delves into the publishing process categories for literature preprints, focusing on those posted in SSRN before 2021 and have been published. Analyzing 608 publications derived from 595 preprints, it was observed that literature preprints were typically uploaded to SSRN after their initial publication. By examining preprints’ written dates, posted dates, final revision dates, and publication dates, four distinct modes of the publishing process were delineated from 136 publications. The primary mode entails writing preprints, followed by posting them on SSRN, finalizing revisions, and finally, publication. On average, authors uploaded their preprints to SSRN and published them around two years after the initial drafting. Most preprints were eventually published in journals, although some authors disregarded journals’ preprint policies. Future research could employ surveys or interviews to elucidate authors’ decisions regarding preprint publication timing, whether before or after posting. 本研究以在2020 年及之前公開在SSRN，且在2022 年5 月前正式出版的文學預行本為研究對象，依據預行本之撰寫完成、於SSRN 公開、正式出版、最後修改預行本之四項時間，探討其出版歷程模式。依據源自595 篇文學預行本所正式出版的608 篇著作，本研究發現文學預行本作者傾向著作正式出版後，再於SSRN 上公開該著作之預行本，並於撰寫完預行本後，平均不到兩年完成公開及正式出版。根據有預行本最後修改時間之136篇正式出版著作，在四種辨識出的出版歷程模式中，最常見的是預行本撰寫完成後就先公開，並在著作正式出版前最後修正預行本。研究也發現預行本主要是以期刊文章正式出版，但部分作者未能完全遵守期刊不允許正式出版前先公開預行本的相關規定。

This commentary abridges three closely related aspects of scholarly publishing, copyright transfer to publishers in the subscription-based model, posting of author-accepted versions to preprint servers, and publishing embargoes, to appreciate how each might impact the dissemination of information. We found no direct evidence showing that either copyright transfer or the posting of early (i.e., author-submitted or journal-accepted) versions of works to preprint servers stifle academics’ ability to share their papers openly. However, some key structural issues and incompatibilities in policies may dampen the wider adoption of preprints despite their widely promoted advantages for scientists. We found a 6- to 36-month embargo period in place by 10 of the world’s top largest publishers, depending on the version of the record. These embargoes may constrain the dissemination of knowledge.

The proliferation of online self‐archiving platforms has greatly facilitated the dissemination of new research findings. However, the extent to which these platforms have increased the impact of research remains uncertain, especially considering the potential bias of researchers favoring the deposition of higher‐quality preprints. To determine the causal relationship between self‐archiving platforms and research impact, we conducted an investigation using a sample of 5423 published articles from 2018 that had preprints deposited on bioRxiv. These articles were compared to a control group of 7862 similar articles without preprints, identified through text‐mining algorithms. By modeling the differences in forward citations over time between the two groups, we established a positive causal effect of self‐archiving platforms on research impact. However, the effect observed in this study was smaller than that reported in previous studies (18.7% vs. 36%), indicating a more accurate and unbiased result. Additionally, the study explored the underlying mechanisms that contribute to the enhancement of research impact, including early dissemination and increased exposure through social networks facilitated by self‐archiving platforms. Overall, this study expands our understanding of how research is disseminated in the era of Internet platforms. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the public communication of COVID-19-related 'preprints' (unreviewed research studies) in a digital media environment. To understand how preprint research flows from preprint server, to media story, to social media audience, we analysed engagement with 'second-order citations' – social media posts linking to media coverage of research – using a sample of 41 media stories published by the research amplifier platform The Conversation (TC) that mentioned preprint research during the early months of the pandemic. We applied content analyses to the Facebook and Twitter accounts sharing these stories and analysed the engagement that the posts received. We found that TC stories mentioning preprints were shared among a diverse collection of Facebook and Twitter accounts, providing a second layer of social media amplification of preprint research. Still, posts by a small proportion of 'elite' actors – people with prominent roles in media and communications, politics or academia – tended to generate more engagement. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

AbstractChatGPT, as the pioneer of advanced generative AI tools, has triggered scholarly discussions about the potential use of such AI technologies in interdisciplinary fields. With a focus on the surge of AI-related preprints since the introduction of ChatGPT by OpenAI, the study investigated what the surge implies for AI literature, particularly in terms of credibility and quality. A scoping review was initially conducted to study the characteristics of the AI-related preprints in the Web of Science (WoS) database and also in five (5) preprint platforms (ArXiv, MedRxiv, SocArxiv, SSRN, and Research Square). The publication date range was set at January 01, 2023 to September 08, 2023. This was followed up by an interpretive phenomenological analysis (IPA) of the perceptions of experts in the AI field about the preprints. Employing a scoping review of AI-related preprints across six databases and a qualitative analysis of 15 AI experts’ opinions, our study reveals concerns about the research accuracy, quality, and credibility of preprints, and advocates for a robust evaluation and high-quality assurance process to promote open science objectives during their dissemination. Specifically, 45,918 AI-related preprints were found in the six preprint databases or repositories across different fields. The nine themes from the IPA showed that preprints can be of value. However, experts advocated for the safe and responsible use of AI-related preprints, involving such tenets as maintaining ethical integrity and high-quality work on the part of authors and establishing sound AI-content guidelines from publishers and editors. Future studies are recommended to investigate the impact of preprints on decision-making processes in educational research and practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open science is receiving widespread attention globally, and preprinting offers an important way to implement open science practices in scholarly publishing. To develop a systematic understanding of researchers' adoption of and attitudes toward preprinting, we conducted a survey of authors of research papers published in 2021 and early 2022. Our survey results show that the United States and Europe led the way in the adoption of preprinting. The United States and European respondents reported a higher familiarity with and a stronger commitment to preprinting than their colleagues elsewhere in the world. The adoption of preprinting is much stronger in physics and astronomy as well as mathematics and computer science than in other research areas. Respondents identified free accessibility of preprints and acceleration of research communication as the most important benefits of preprinting. Low reliability and credibility of preprints, sharing results before peer review and premature media coverage are the most significant concerns about preprinting, emphasized in particular by respondents in the life and health sciences. According to respondents, the most crucial strategies to encourage preprinting are integrating preprinting into journal submission workflows and providing recognition for posting preprints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: Dynamic assessments evaluate ability to learn and may be less biased against children who historically have underperformed on static measures that evaluate acquired knowledge. This meta-analysis examined the validity of dynamic assessments of word reading skills (phonological awareness, sound--symbol knowledge, and decoding), as measured by the strength of their correlation with performance on word reading measures. The consistency of their validity across participant reading status (typically developing vs. at risk), language status (monolingual vs. bilingual), and age group (4-5 vs. 6-7 vs. 8-9 years) was also examined to determine whether this assessment approach is an equitable means of evaluating early word reading skills. Method: Electronic databases and preprint repositories were searched to identify studies that evaluated dynamic assessments of word reading skills conducted with children between the ages of 4 and 10 years. Pearson's correlation coefficients representing the relationship between dynamic assessments and word reading measures were extracted, and an overall pooled mean effect size was calculated using a random-effects meta-analysis with robust variance estimation. Subgroup analyses for participant reading status, language status, and age group were also conducted to determine whether there were significant differences in effect sizes across groups. Results: Thirty-five studies with 192 effect sizes were identified. Overall, dynamic assessments of word reading skills demonstrated strong correlations with word reading measures (g = 0.49). Subgroup analysis by age indicated that dynamic assessments are significantly better suited to evaluate word reading in younger children (ages 4-5 and 6-7 years) than older students (ages 8-9 years; p = .0001). Validity was consistent across typically developing and at-risk participants and across bilinguals and monolinguals. There were few studies conducted with bilinguals despite dynamic assessment's purported application for this population. Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides preliminary evidence to support dynamic assessments as a valid and equitable means of evaluating word reading skills with diverse children aged 4-7 years. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A Trans/Form/Ação passa a receber preprints como modalidade de submissão. Modelo piloto busca incentivar o debate científico e o aprimoramento de textos de interesse filosófico. Doutores ou doutorandos aprovados em exame de qualificação podem submeter seus manuscritos em fluxo contínuo.

Background The quality of COVID-19 preprints should be considered with great care, as their contents can influence public policy. Surprisingly little has been done to calibrate the public’s evaluation of preprints and their contents. The PRECHECK project aimed to generate a tool to teach and guide scientifically literate non-experts to critically evaluate preprints, on COVID-19 and beyond. Methods To create a checklist, we applied a four-step procedure consisting of an initial internal review, an external review by a pool of experts (methodologists, meta-researchers/experts on preprints, journal editors, and science journalists), a final internal review, and a Preliminary implementation stage. For the external review step, experts rated the relevance of each element of the checklist on five-point Likert scales, and provided written feedback. After each internal review round, we applied the checklist on a small set of high-quality preprints from an online list of milestone research works on COVID-19 and low-quality preprints, which were eventually retracted, to verify whether the checklist can discriminate between the two categories. Results At the external review step, 26 of the 54 contacted experts responded. The final checklist contained four elements (Research question, study type, transparency and integrity, and limitations), with ‘superficial’ and ‘deep’ evaluation levels. When using both levels, the checklist was effective at discriminating a small set of high- and low-quality preprints. Its usability for assessment and discussion of preprints was confirmed in workshops with Bachelors students in Psychology and Medicine, and science journalists. Conclusions We created a simple, easy-to-use tool for helping scientifically literate non-experts navigate preprints with a critical mind and facilitate discussions within, for example, a beginner-level lecture on research methods. We believe that our checklist has potential to help guide decisions about the quality of preprints on COVID-19 in our target audience and that this extends beyond COVID-19.

Significance: This article delves into the critical juncture at which scientific publishing finds itself, examining traditional pre-publication peer review, the emerging ‘publish all’ model, and the role of preprints. As the scientific community grapples with the need for rapid dissemination of research alongside maintaining rigorous quality controls, the article offers a comprehensive analysis of the pros and cons of each model. It serves as an essential read for researchers, academics, and policymakers, providing insights into how these evolving models impact the quality, credibility, and accessibility of scientific research. It aims to guide informed choices in the ever-changing landscape of scientific publishing. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Egyptian Journal of Information Sciences is the property of Beni Suef University and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The situation of Spanish Early Career Researchers (ECRs) during the pandemic is presented, taking into account the main changes caused by confinement in their work habits and academic communication practices. Based on the information extracted from interviews and surveys, the transformations experienced in the following areas are analyzed: distance teaching, research production, the evaluation system and the metrics used, the progress of open science, peer review, ethically questionable practices, collaboration and networking, online meetings and conferences, scientific dissemination and outreach and the use of social networks. After the pandemic, some disruptions have reversed. However, others have remained. The pandemic has normalized the use of virtual and hybrid events and promoted researchers' dissemination practices, among other changes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the integration of arXiv preprints into the zbMATH Open database, which has increased the number of open access documents available. The authors explain the editorial policies and technical challenges involved in this integration, including matching preprints with published versions and author disambiguation. They also highlight the benefits of including arXiv preprints, such as enhancing visibility and providing insights into the publication process. The article concludes by discussing future challenges and potential developments for this integration. [Extracted from the article]

When deciding which submissions should be peer reviewed, eLife editors consider whether they will be able to find high-quality reviewers, and whether the reviews will be valuable to the scientific community.

Background The quality of COVID-19 preprints should be considered with great care, as their contents can influence public policy. Surprisingly little has been done to calibrate the public’s evaluation of preprints and their contents. The PRECHECK project aimed to generate a tool to teach and guide scientifically literate non-experts to critically evaluate preprints, on COVID-19 and beyond. Methods To create a checklist, we applied a four-step procedure consisting of an initial internal review, an external review by a pool of experts (methodologists, meta-researchers/experts on preprints, journal editors, and science journalists), a final internal review, and a Preliminary implementation stage. For the external review step, experts rated the relevance of each element of the checklist on five-point Likert scales, and provided written feedback. After each internal review round, we applied the checklist on a small set of high-quality preprints from an online list of milestone research works on COVID-19 and low-quality preprints, which were eventually retracted, to verify whether the checklist can discriminate between the two categories. Results At the external review step, 26 of the 54 contacted experts responded. The final checklist contained four elements (Research question, study type, transparency and integrity, and limitations), with ‘superficial’ and ‘deep’ evaluation levels. When using both levels, the checklist was effective at discriminating a small set of high- and low-quality preprints. Its usability for assessment and discussion of preprints was confirmed in workshops with Bachelors students in Psychology and Medicine, and science journalists. Conclusions We created a simple, easy-to-use tool for helping scientifically literate non-experts navigate preprints with a critical mind and facilitate discussions within, for example, a beginner-level lecture on research methods. We believe that our checklist has potential to help guide decisions about the quality of preprints on COVID-19 in our target audience and that this extends beyond COVID-19.

The use of preprints, research manuscripts shared publicly before completing the traditional peer-review process, is becoming a more common practice among life science researchers. Early-career researchers (ECRs) benefit from posting preprints as they are shareable, citable, and prove productivity. However, preprinting a manuscript involves a discussion among all co-authors, and ECRs are often not the decision-makers. Therefore, ECRs may find themselves in situations where they are interested in depositing a preprint but are unsure how to approach their co-authors or advisor about preprinting. Leveraging our own experiences as ECRs, and feedback from the research community, we have constructed a guide for ECRs who are considering preprinting to enable them to take ownership over the process and to raise awareness about preprinting options. We hope that this guide helps ECRs to initiate conversations about preprinting with co-authors and encourage them to preprint their future research.

Peer review is an important part of the scientific process, but traditional peer review at journals is coming under increased scrutiny for its inefficiency and lack of transparency. As preprints become more widely used and accepted, they raise the possibility of rethinking the peer-review process. Preprints are enabling new forms of peer review that have the potential to be more thorough, inclusive, and collegial than traditional journal peer review, and to thus fundamentally shift the culture of peer review toward constructive collaboration. In this Consensus View, we make a call to action to stakeholders in the community to accelerate the growing momentum of preprint sharing and provide recommendations to empower researchers to provide open and constructive peer review for preprints. As preprints become more widely used and accepted, they raise the possibility of rethinking the peer-review process. This Consensus View issues a call to action to accelerate the growing momentum of preprint sharing and provides recommendations to empower researchers to provide open and constructive peer review for preprints. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

During the COVID-19 pandemic, journalists were encouraged to convey uncertainty surrounding preliminary scientific evidence, including mentioning when research is unpublished or unverified by peer review. To understand how public audiences interpret this information, we conducted a mixed method study with U.S. adults. Participants read a news article about preprint COVID-19 vaccine research in early April 2021, just as the vaccine was becoming widely available to the U.S. public. We modified the article to test two ways of conveying uncertainty (hedging of scientific claims and mention of preprint status) in a 2 × 2 between-participants factorial design. To complement this, we collected open-ended data to assess participants' understanding of the concept of a scientific preprint. In all, participants who read hedged (vs. unhedged) versions of the article reported less favorable vaccine attitudes and intentions and found the scientists and news reporting less trustworthy. These effects were moderated by participants' epistemic beliefs and their preference for information about scientific uncertainty. However, there was no impact of describing the study as a preprint, and participants' qualitative responses indicated a limited understanding of the concept. We discuss implications of these findings for communicating initial scientific evidence to the public and we outline important next steps for research and theory-building. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Bibliometrics is the practice of analyzing books, articles, and other publications using statistical methods, with a particular focus on scientific contexts. This research employs bibliometric analysis to explore the evolution of the research landscape on bibliometrics and bibliometric analysis literature, utilizing the Dimensions AI database. A total of 23,527 articles were discovered in the Dimensions AI database when the search terms "bibliometric" and "bibliometric analysis" were input into the "Title" field. These articles cover a range of publication years from 1974 to 2024. Furthermore, upon selecting the "Health Science" category, 2,011 articles were displayed. Co-occurrence, co-authorship, countries, academic institutions, and future orientations are used to illustrate previous trends, growth, and prospects in the results, which are displayed through graphs, tables, and data maps. The results show that papers account for the majority of publications (1,888), with preprints coming in second (93). The most productive journal is Frontiers in Public Health, with 109 articles and 659 citations, while the most productive author is Waleed Mohamad Sweileh, with a substantial number of publications (n = 36) and total citations (1,428). The most productive academic institution is An-Najah National University, which tops the list with 63 publications and 2,082 citations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Today, access to publications is available in digital environments rather than printed materials. Therefore, databases become very important in accessing scientific publications. With databases, instant and easy access to current publications from all over the world is possible. Scilit (www.scilit.net) is one of these important databases. Scilit is a free database developed by MDPI AG. Scilit includes journal articles, book chapters, monographs, and preprints. It provides services to scientists, academics and everyone who is interested. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses a website called The Pilgrim's Guide, which was created by Dr. Elizabeth Lastra and her research assistant, Gigi Leung, at the University of Hong Kong. The website serves as an interactive map that introduces medieval pilgrimage routes and provides information about important buildings and artifacts along these routes. The site includes essays, photographs, and visual tools related to each pilgrimage site. The article praises the high quality of the site and suggests that it could be used in undergraduate courses. It also commends the developers for archiving the site and suggests making the geodata used to create the maps accessible. [Extracted from the article]

Significance: Uploading unreviewed manuscripts to a preprint server promotes accessibility and facilitates rapid breakthroughs. We, however, question the motivation of Berger and colleagues who used the new eLife publishing model to launch what appeared to be a carefully curated media campaign around an unreviewed narrative, thereby manipulating accepted norms in scientific publishing. This team has engaged in ostentatious public displays under the guise of promoting science, including launching precious fossil remains into space. Given these ethical concerns, we call on the public, heritage and scientific practitioners to reflect on the current state, and future, of human evolution research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background The quality of COVID-19 preprints should be considered with great care, as their contents can influence public policy. Surprisingly little has been done to calibrate the public’s evaluation of preprints and their contents. The PRECHECK project aimed to generate a tool to teach and guide scientifically literate non-experts to critically evaluate preprints, on COVID-19 and beyond. Methods To create a checklist, we applied a four-step procedure consisting of an initial internal review, an external review by a pool of experts (methodologists, meta-researchers/experts on preprints, journal editors, and science journalists), a final internal review, and a Preliminary implementation stage. For the external review step, experts rated the relevance of each element of the checklist on five-point Likert scales, and provided written feedback. After each internal review round, we applied the checklist on a small set of high-quality preprints from an online list of milestone research works on COVID-19 and low-quality preprints, which were eventually retracted, to verify whether the checklist can discriminate between the two categories. Results At the external review step, 26 of the 54 contacted experts responded. The final checklist contained four elements (Research question, study type, transparency and integrity, and limitations), with ‘superficial’ and ‘deep’ evaluation levels. When using both levels, the checklist was effective at discriminating a small set of high- and low-quality preprints. Its usability for assessment and discussion of preprints was confirmed in workshops with Bachelors students in Psychology and Medicine, and science journalists. Conclusions We created a simple, easy-to-use tool for helping scientifically literate non-experts navigate preprints with a critical mind and facilitate discussions within, for example, a beginner-level lecture on research methods. We believe that our checklist has potential to help guide decisions about the quality of preprints on COVID-19 in our target audience and that this extends beyond COVID-19.

Background Preprints are scientific manuscripts that are made available on open-access servers but are not yet peer reviewed. Although preprints are becoming more prevalent, uptake is not uniform or optimal. Understanding researchers’ opinions and attitudes toward preprints is valuable for their successful implementation. Understanding knowledge gaps and researchers’ attitudes toward preprinting can assist stakeholders, such as journals, funding agencies, and universities, to implement preprints more effectively. Here, we aimed to collect perceptions and behaviours regarding preprints across an international sample of biomedical researchers. Methods Biomedical authors were identified by a keyword-based, systematic search of the MEDLINE database, and their emails were extracted to invite them to our survey. A cross-sectional anonymous survey was distributed to all identified biomedical authors to collect their knowledge, attitudes, and opinions regarding preprinting. Results The survey was completed by 730 biomedical researchers with a response rate of 3.20% and demonstrated a wide range of attitudes and opinions about preprints with authors from various disciplines and career stages worldwide. Most respondents were familiar with the concept of preprints but most had not previously published a preprint. The lead author of the project and journal policy had the greatest impact on decisions to post a preprint, whereas employers/research institutes had the least impact. Supporting open science practices was the highest ranked incentive, while increasing authors’ visibility was the highest ranked motivation for publishing preprints. Conclusions Although many biomedical researchers recognize the benefits of preprints, there is still hesitation among others to engage in this practice. This may be due to the general lack of peer review of preprints and little enthusiasm from external organizations such as journals, funding agencies, and universities. Future work is needed to determine optimal ways to increase researchers’ attitudes through modifications to current preprint systems and policies.

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.

What happened when eLife decided to eliminate accept/reject decisions after peer review?

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.

The process of peer review has been the gold standard for evaluating medical science, but significant pressures from the recent COVID-19 pandemic, new methods of communication, larger amounts of research, and an evolving publication landscape have placed significant pressures on this system. A task force convened by the American College of Cardiology identified the 5 most significant controversies associated with the current peer-review process: the effect of preprints, reviewer blinding, reviewer selection, reviewer incentivization, and publication of peer reviewer comments. Although specific solutions to these issues will vary, regardless of how scientific communication evolves, peer review must remain an essential process for ensuring scientific integrity, timely dissemination of information, and better patient care. In medicine, the peer-review process is crucial because harm can occur if poor-quality data or incorrect conclusions are published. With the dramatic increase in scientific publications and new methods of communication, high-quality peer review is more important now than ever. [Display omitted] • Peer review of medical science is critical to providing clinicians with fairly vetted and accurate information. • The current process of peer review is often opaque, slow, and susceptible to conscious and unconscious bias. • Peer-review processes must evolve to incorporate contemporary methods of communication and respond to increasing clinical demands. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]