Search

With the increasing embrace of preprints by scientific and social science disciplines, the humanities have garnered comparatively less attention in their development. This study targeted 1,734 preprints uploaded on the SSRN Literature Research Network between 1997 and 2020. The findings reveal substantial preprint growth in both traditional and interdisciplinary literature categories since 2007. A total of 1,376 authors were identified as affiliated with 676 institutions across 75 countries and represented 25 disciplines. Only 6 authors shared preprints in both interdisciplinary and traditional literature, but they were productive, contributing 8-100 preprints. Law authors dominated interdisciplinary literature preprints because most preprints were related to law and literature. This differed in that language and literature authors predominantly shared preprints in traditional literature. Additionally, there is a slightly higher publication rate in interdisciplinary literature preprints than in traditional literature preprints (36.6% vs. 31.8%). Traditional literature preprints showed a significantly higher preference for publishing in the format of journal articles compared to interdisciplinary literature preprints (88.7% vs. 77.3%). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With the increasing embrace of preprints by scientific and social science disciplines, the humanities have garnered comparatively less attention in their development. This study targeted 1,734 preprints uploaded on the SSRN Literature Research Network between 1997 and 2020. The findings reveal substantial preprint growth in both traditional and interdisciplinary literature categories since 2007. A total of 1,376 authors were identified as affiliated with 676 institutions across 75 countries and represented 25 disciplines. Only 6 authors shared preprints in both interdisciplinary and traditional literature, but they were productive, contributing 8-100 preprints. Law authors dominated interdisciplinary literature preprints because most preprints were related to law and literature. This differed in that language and literature authors predominantly shared preprints in traditional literature. Additionally, there is a slightly higher publication rate in interdisciplinary literature preprints than in traditional literature preprints (36.6% vs. 31.8%). Traditional literature preprints showed a significantly higher preference for publishing in the format of journal articles compared to interdisciplinary literature preprints (88.7% vs. 77.3%).

Abstract 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.

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]

The Open Science movement is taking hold around the world, and language testers are taking part. In this Viewpoint, I discuss how sharing, collaborating, and building trust, guided by Open Science principles, benefit the language testing field. To help more language testers join in, I present a standard definition of Open Science and describe four ways language testing researchers can immediately partake. Overall, I share my views on how Open Science is an accelerating process that improves language testing as a scientific and humanistic field. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Preprints are assuming an increasingly pivotal role in the realm of scientific communication. Capitalizing on their early accessibility, open access, and expeditious peer feedback, it is anticipated that submissions accompanied by preprints would enjoy advantages in terms of acceptance time. This study compared the differences in acceptance time between 100,077 preprint papers from the platforms arXiv, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, and 1,314,973 non-preprint papers submitted to the same journal within the same year and month. All these papers are indexed in PubMed, indicating that the majority originate from the life sciences and biomedical fields. The findings demonstrate that manuscripts released as preprints before journal submission experience significantly shorter acceptance time compared to those without preprints. However, if preprints are posted after submitting to a journal, they do not confer an advantage in terms of acceptance time. Furthermore, regression results grouped by Journal Impact Factor quartiles, Preprint-submission duration, preprint platform, pre- and post-COVID-19 outbreak, as well as by discipline, consistently demonstrate that preprint papers released as preprints before journal submission have an advantage in acceptance time. [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]

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. [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.

Abstract 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.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

O presente texto objetiva apresentar e descrever as políticas de Ciência Aberta e o Método de Submissão e Avaliação de Manuscritos da Revista REAMEC. Estas políticas refletem o compromisso do periódico com o modus operandi da Ciência Aberta, abrangendo, entre outros aspectos, avaliação por pares aberta, acesso aberto, dados abertos, preprints e código aberto, bem como ciência cidadã. A partir de 2024, a Revista REAMEC implementará a Ciência Aberta como seu novo modus operandi para fomentar, projetar, realizar e comunicar pesquisa científica. Além disso, a revista se compromete com os princípios DEIA (Diversidade, Equidade, Inclusão e Acessibilidade) em sua estrutura e operação editorial, e com os princípios FAIR (Findable, Accessible, Interoperable, Reusable), assegurando que os dados de pesquisa sejam localizáveis, acessíveis, interoperáveis e reutilizáveis. Essas políticas estão alinhadas com as diretrizes da Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO Brasil), refletindo o empenho da Revista REAMEC na integridade, transparência e inovação na área de Ensino de Ciências e Matemática, e na promoção de maior transparência no processo avaliativo dos manuscritos submetidos. As políticas editoriais de Ciência Aberta e o Método de Submissão e Avaliação de Manuscritos, apresentados neste editorial, marcam uma nova fase da Revista REAMEC na comunicação científica.

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.

Abstract Objective Preprints have had a prominent role in the swift scientific response to COVID-19. Two years into the pandemic, we investigated how much preprints had contributed to timely data sharing by analyzing the lag time from preprint posting to journal publication. Results To estimate the median number of days between the date a manuscript was posted as a preprint and the date of its publication in a scientific journal, we analyzed preprints posted from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021 in the NIH iSearch COVID-19 Portfolio database and performed a Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis using a non-mixture parametric cure model. Of the 39,243 preprints in our analysis, 7712 (20%) were published in a journal, after a median lag of 178 days (95% CI: 175–181). Most of the published preprints were posted on the bioRxiv (29%) or medRxiv (65%) servers, which allow authors to choose a subject category when posting. Of the 20,698 preprints posted on these two servers, 7358 (36%) were published, including approximately half of those categorized as biochemistry, biophysics, and genomics, which became published articles within the study interval, compared with 29% categorized as epidemiology and 26% as bioinformatics.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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.

A previous survey of African medical journals identified the need to assist journals and public health researchers to make publications more openly accessible. This article reports a subsequent survey to describe knowledge of, barriers to and interest in capacity building for open publishing of public health research in Africa. An online questionnaire collected information from 91 respondents in 16 African countries. The respondents were authors (75%) or reviewers (53%) of research articles, journal editors (40%) or journal publishers (19%), with overlap between them, and experience with both traditional and open access publications. Fewer than half of the respondents appreciated benefits of ready availability, added citations and transparency of open publishing. Some respondents chose incorrect answers. There was interest in open publishing using preprints and open reviews, and a majority would like access to free online courses and mentoring opportunities. This study notes a huge potential for equipping researchers in Africa with the skills to understand and use online publishing and provides guidance for future capacity building via access to online resources and mentoring. This is relevant for any discipline, such as public health, where local solutions based on local research findings are important.

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.

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.

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.

Abstract 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.

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Estamos en presencia de un gran momento para el avance de la ciencia psicológica. Disponemos actualmente de una amplia gama de recursos y fuentes para adherir a buenas prácticas de investigación, que permitan desarrollar una disciplina cada vez más confiable, válida y reproducible. Dentro de los comportamientos responsables en investigación, es indispensable fomentar la adhesión a prácticas de transparencia y ciencia abierta. Y si bien actualmente es difícil pensar que algún investigador o investigadora no acuerde con estos principios y prácticas, su implementación no es aún generalizada o extendida, ni en todas las disciplinas y subdisciplinas, ni por igual en todos los países. Aquí nos interesa centrarnos en las prácticas de medición, es decir, en el campo de la psicometría. Consideramos que las prácticas transparentes y de ciencia abierta son una solución viable y fundamental para contrarrestar las conductas cuestionables en investigación y, especialmente, aquellas referidas a las prácticas cuestionables en medición. Centrarse en estas prácticas psicométricas o vinculadas a la medición es fundamental, dado que de ellas depende la validez más general de nuestros hallazgos científicos. El fin último de este trabajo es ofrecer una serie de recursos que faciliten la divulgación y adhesión de estos comportamientos responsables en investigación entre los investigadores de Latinoamérica.

Preprints are a crucial vehicle for knowledge dissemination in modern times. The vigorous development of the preprint industry demonstrates the significance of open science and represents a significant change in the manner research results are disseminated. This study explores preprints through literature analysis. Specifically, publication ethics issues related to preprints and their role in knowledge dissemination during the COVID-19 pandemic are discussed. First, this study examines the history and characteristics of preprints, investigating their functions and features in academic research and knowledge dissemination. Further, three issues related to publication ethics resulting from the knowledge dissemination model of preprints are presented. The study also sheds light on preprints in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, including the quantity and quality of preprints. In addition, the positive impact of preprints on knowledge dissimilation during the COVID-19 pandemic and some latent problems are also discussed. Finally, the author of this study proposes suggestions for institutions and individuals serving different roles in the academic community regarding the aspects in which they can help promote the publication ethics and rightful knowledge dissemination of preprints.

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.

Academic publishing is undergoing a highly transformative process, and many established rules and value systems that are in place, such as traditional peer review (TPR) and preprints, are facing unprecedented challenges, including as a result of post-publication peer review. The integrity and validity of the academic literature continue to rely naively on blind trust, while TPR and preprints continue to fail to effectively screen out errors, fraud, and misconduct. Imperfect TPR invariably results in imperfect papers that have passed through varying levels of rigor of screening and validation. If errors or misconduct were not detected during TPR's editorial screening, but are detected at the post-publication stage, an opportunity is created to correct the academic record. Currently, the most common forms of correcting the academic literature are errata, corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions or withdrawals. Some additional measures to correct the literature have emerged, including manuscript versioning, amendments, partial retractions and retract and replace. Preprints can also be corrected if their version is updated. This paper discusses the risks, benefits and limitations of these forms of correcting the academic literature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The role of preprints in the scientific production and their part in citations have been growing over the past 10 years. In this paper we study preprint citations in several different aspects: the progression of preprint citations over time, their relative frequencies in relation to the IMRaD structure of articles, their distributions over time, per preprint database and per PLOS journal. We have processed the PLOS corpus that covers 7 journals and a total of about 240,000 articles up to January 2021, and produced a dataset of 8460 preprint citation contexts that cite 12 different preprint databases. Our results show that preprint citations are found with the highest frequency in the Method section of articles, though small variations exist with respect to journals. The PLOS Computational Biology journal stands out as it contains more than three times more preprint citations than any other PLOS journal. The relative parts of the different preprint databases are also examined. While ArXiv and bioRxiv are the most frequent citation sources, bioRxiv's disciplinary nature can be observed as it is the source of more than 70% of preprint citations in PLOS Biology, PLOS Genetics and PLOS Pathogens. We have also compared the lexical content of preprint citation contexts to the citation content to peer-reviewed publications. Finally, by performing a lexicometric analysis, we have shown that preprint citation contexts differ significantly from citation contexts of peer-reviewed publications. This confirms that authors make use of different lexical content when citing preprints compared to the rest of citations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Preprints have had a prominent role in the swift scientific response to COVID-19. Two years into the pandemic, we investigated how much preprints had contributed to timely data sharing by analyzing the lag time from preprint posting to journal publication. Results: To estimate the median number of days between the date a manuscript was posted as a preprint and the date of its publication in a scientific journal, we analyzed preprints posted from January 1, 2020, to December 31, 2021 in the NIH iSearch COVID-19 Portfolio database and performed a Kaplan-Meier (KM) survival analysis using a non-mixture parametric cure model. Of the 39,243 preprints in our analysis, 7712 (20%) were published in a journal, after a median lag of 178 days (95% CI: 175–181). Most of the published preprints were posted on the bioRxiv (29%) or medRxiv (65%) servers, which allow authors to choose a subject category when posting. Of the 20,698 preprints posted on these two servers, 7358 (36%) were published, including approximately half of those categorized as biochemistry, biophysics, and genomics, which became published articles within the study interval, compared with 29% categorized as epidemiology and 26% as bioinformatics. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Open science is a movement that fosters research transparency, reproducibility, and equity. Open science has been put forward by numerous stakeholders in the research ecosystem as a key science policy goal, with the United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization creating recommendations on open science and aligning these with UN Sustainability Goals. Open science practices are not standard to epidemiology despite their potential value to the field and especially during disease outbreaks. This article highlights core open science practices, including study registration, open data, code, material, use of reporting guideline, open access publishing, and preprints. It aims to provide readers with the fundamentals about open science, relevant international policy for open science, and the value of implementing open science for epidemiology and society as a whole. It is a practical piece that will provide readers with a starting point to expand their understanding of open science and to identify tools to learn more. The article also highlights the challenges of open science in its implementation and the importance of monitoring open science practices., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest D. M. is a member of the editorial board for the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. K. D. C. is co-chair of the San Francisco Declaration on Research Assessment (DORA). A. C. V. A. has no competing interest to declare. E. X. has no competing interest to declare. The UNESCO recommendation on Open Science provides a unified global definition and framework that guide open science policies, principles, and practices. The United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) are designed to address key global challenges and deeply aligned with the principles of open science. The goals were adopted by all UN member states in 2015 and the implementation progress is closely monitored on a yearly basis. In this paper, the authors outline the benefits and challenges of implementing open science practices for early career researchers. This book provides a practical guide on how to select and apply guidelines for health research reporting. In this paper, the authors demystify the common concerns among researchers regarding preprints and outline the key benefits of submitting preprints., (Copyright © 2024 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

The paper explores the impact of Covid-19 on scientists' collaboration behaviour in the 14 countries with the largest research output. The approach is bibliometric, taking the unit of analysis of collaborations as the individual researchers and the co-authorships in their preprints. The time plot of the data confirms a clear discontinuity in the number of preprint depositions after the Covid-19 outbreak. Less evident is the discontinuity in average number of co-authors per preprint, and also in propensity to collaborate. Investigating further, a multivariate econometric analysis shows that for propensity to national collaboration (both intra- and extramural) there has been a positive "effect" from the pandemic, but negative one on international collaboration. The same analysis conducted by country, however, reveals that these effects are significant only in some countries and often with discordant signs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Since the outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), a large number of COVID-19-related reports have been published in journals or submitted to preprint platforms. In this study, we search the COVID-19-related literature officially published and included in the Web of Science (WOS) database or submitted to four preprint platforms: bioRxiv, medRxiv, Preprints, and SSRN. Using data on the number of reports, author institution, country, and research category, we analyze global trends in COVID-19 research, including institution distribution and research hotspots. The results show that a large number of COVID-19-related reports have been produced; the United States has contributed the most published literature, followed by China. The United States has published the most reports included in the WOS in the categories of non-pharmaceutical interventions, treatment, and vaccine-related reports, while China has published the most literature in the categories of clinical features and complications, virology and immunology, epidemiology, and detection and diagnosis. Publication countries are concentrated in Asia, North America, and Europe, while South America and Africa have less literature. In conclusion, many scientific research issues related to COVID-19 need to be further clarified and COVID-19 research urgently needs global cooperation.

• The relationship between readability of manuscript before journal submission (represented by preprints) and reviewers' sentiment during the first round of peer review is investigated. • Positivity and negativity sentimental features were utilized to represent the linguistic characteristics of reviewers. • Scientific papers with lower readability level are written using more technical language. • Reviewers are inclined to express positive sentiment towards preprints of scientific papers characterized by technical language (exhibiting lower readability level). • The importance of exploring the role of preprints for enhancing the open peer review practice. The practice of uploading preprints of scientific manuscripts prior to journal submission has become increasingly popular. As such, it is essential to understand the impact of the preprint version of a manuscript on the peer review process to facilitate the development of open peer review practices. In the current research, we analyze a dataset comprising 1,078 biomedical papers published in Nature Communications and eLife in 2019, along with their manuscript information posted on preprint servers and their peer review histories. Our investigation focuses on the relationship between the readability of manuscript before journal submission, as represented by preprints, and the sentimental features expressed by reviewers. Based on empirical analysis utilizing a linear regression model, it has been found that reviewers are inclined to express positive sentiments towards preprints characterized by technical language, as indicated by low value on the readability indices. Additional subgroup analysis suggests that this positive effect is more pronounced in papers with lower social and scientific impact, as indicated by online attention scores and scholarly views after publication, respectively. Overall, results of our analysis reveals that the utilization of technical language characterized by lower readability level in academic papers does not seem to hinder the peer review process in biomedical science, which has significant implications for the open peer review practice. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Due to advances in electron microscopy and deep learning, it is now practical to reconstruct a connectome, a description of neurons and the chemical synapses between them, for significant volumes of neural tissue. Smaller past reconstructions were primarily used by domain experts, could be handled by downloading data, and performance was not a serious problem. But new and much larger reconstructions upend these assumptions. These networks now contain tens of thousands of neurons and tens ofmillions of connections, with yet larger reconstructions pending, and are of interest to a large community of non-specialists. Allowing other scientists to make use of this data needs more than publication--it requires new tools that are publicly available, easy to use, and efficiently handle large data. We introduce neuPrint to address these data analysis challenges. Neuprint contains two major components--a web interface and programmer APIs. The web interface is designed to allow any scientist worldwide, using only a browser, to quickly ask and answer typical biological queries about a connectome. The neuPrint APIs allow more computer-savvy scientists to make more complex or higher volume queries. NeuPrint also provides features for assessing reconstruction quality. Internally, neuPrint organizes connectome data as a graph stored in a neo4j database. This gives high performance for typical queries, provides access though a public and well documented query language Cypher, and will extend well to future larger connectomics databases. Our experience is also an experiment in open science.We find a significant fraction of the readers of the article proceed to examine the data directly. In our case preprints worked exactly as intended, with data inquiries and PDF downloads starting immediately after pre-print publication, and little affected by formal publication later. Fromthis we deduce that many readers are more interested in our data than in our analysis of our data, suggesting that data-only papers can be well appreciated and that public data release can speed up the propagation of scientific results bymanymonths. We also find that providing, and keeping, the data available for online access imposes substantial additional costs to connectomics research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objectives: We aimed to explore the collective wisdom of preprints related to COVID-19 by comparing and synthesizing them with results of peer-reviewed publications. Methods: PubMed, Google Scholar, medRxiv, bioRxiv, arXiv, and SSRN were searched for papers regarding the estimation of four epidemiological parameters of COVID-19: the basic reproduction number, incubation period, infectious period, and case-fatality-rate. Distributions of parameters and timeliness of preprints and peer-reviewed papers were compared. Four parameters in two groups were synthesized by bootstrapping, and their validities were evaluated by simulated cumulative cases of the susceptible-exposed-infectious-recovered-dead-cumulative (SEIRDC) model. Results: A total of 106 papers were included for analysis. The distributions of four parameters in two literature groups were close, and the timeliness of preprints was better. Synthesized estimates of the basic reproduction number (3.18, 95% CI 2.85–3.53), incubation period (5.44 days, 95% CI 4.98–5.99), infectious period (6.25 days, 95% CI 5.09–7.51), and case-fatality-rate (4.51%, 95% CI 3.41%–6.29%) were obtained. Simulated cumulative cases of the SEIRDC model matched well with the onset cases in China. Conclusions: The validity of the COVID-19 parameter estimations of the preprints was on par with that of peer-reviewed publications, and synthesized results of literatures could reduce the uncertainty and be used for epidemic decision-making.

Purpose In the current era of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the trend of sharing new research results through preprint platforms is receiving more attention from researchers than ever before. Preprints have been recognized as a primary and essential method to disseminate new findings faster than traditional publications. Therefore, it has become necessary for journals and editors to acknowledge these changes, prepare preprint policies, and notify authors accordingly. This study aimed to review the status of preprint policies of international publishers and Asian academic society journals. Methods In total, 383 Asian academic society journals registered in Science Citation Index Expanded were selected as a dataset for analysis between December 11, 2020 and January 8, 2021. Three different parameters were investigated whether each journal had a preprint policy, whether journals allowed preprint manuscripts to be submitted, and whether preprint articles were allowed to be included in the references. Results Among the 383 Asian academic society journals from 22 countries, only 28 journals accepted preprint manuscripts, and eight allowed the use of preprint manuscripts as references. Japan had the most journals that both had preprint policies and accepted preprint manuscripts, with 13 journals, followed by Korea with 10 journals. Conclusion Despite the limitations of this study, the results show that editors and journal staff should understand the current preprint trend and try to prepare preprint policies that best meet the journals’ and authors’ interests.