Back to Search
Start Over
An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 5 approved with reservations]
- Source :
- F1000Research. 13:6
- Publication Year :
- 2024
- Publisher :
- London, UK: F1000 Research Limited, 2024.
-
Abstract
- Background Preprints are scientific manuscripts that are made available on open-access servers but are not yet peer-reviewed.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 optimal. Understanding researchers’ opinions and attitudes toward preprints is valuable to optimize their use. Understanding knowledge gaps and researchers’ attitudes toward preprinting can assist stakeholders, such as journals, funding agencies, and universities, to use preprints more effectively. Here, we aimed to collect perceptions and behaviours regarding preprints across an international sample of biomedical researchers. Methods Corresponding authors of articles published in biomedical research journals were identified from a random sample of journals from the MEDLINE database. Their names and email addresses were extracted to invite them to our anonymous, cross-sectional survey, which asked participants questions about their knowledge, attitudes, and opinions regarding preprinting. Results The survey was completed by 730 respondents providing 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 posted one. 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 improve researchers’ attitudes through modifications to current preprint systems and policies.
Details
- ISSN :
- 20461402
- Volume :
- 13
- Database :
- F1000Research
- Journal :
- F1000Research
- Notes :
- Revised Amendments from Version 1 The title of the manuscript remained unchanged. However, the abstract has been updated to provide a more neutral framing of the study, ensuring that the discussion of preprints and peer review is balanced and supported by the study data, rather than presenting a preconceived notion in favor of preprinting. Regarding the author list, no changes were required. In the methods section, we revised the sampling framework to address concerns about journal selection. We clarified the use of filters from the NLM catalog to ensure that only journal entries were included, and provided a list of the 400 journals used as supplementary data. Additional clarifications were made regarding the expected response rate, citing literature to support our initial prediction and addressing the reviewer’s request for more context on ResearchGate's inclusion as a preprint platform. We also added a reference for the MedRxiv preprint and revised citations to conform with F1000Research’s citation guidelines for web links. In the results section, Table 3 has been updated to include percentages, improving the consistency of data presentation across all tables. Moreover, we re-emphasized the unfamiliarity of journal policies regarding preprints, rather than attributing the lack of preprinting behavior solely to unsupportive journal policies, as initially suggested. Lastly, in the discussion, we addressed concerns about the framing of peer review and preprints. Changes were made to the introduction and background to better contextualize the survey results, highlighting concerns around peer review and preprinting in a balanced manner. The strengths and limitations section was also updated to reflect limitations regarding the dominance of clinical researchers in the sample., , [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 5 approved with reservations]
- Publication Type :
- Academic Journal
- Accession number :
- edsfor.10.12688.f1000research.143013.2
- Document Type :
- research-article
- Full Text :
- https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.143013.2