Reporting COVID-19 preprints: fast science in newspapers in the United States, the United Kingdom and Brazil

Abstract

The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the pace of science. Many scientific data are published on preprint repositories, prior to peer review, which raises questions about the credibility of the information not yet validated by other scientists. We analyzed 76 stories published from January to July 2020 by three newspapers (The New York Times - USA, The Guardian - UK and Folha de S. Paulo - Brazil), having as topic studies on COVID-19 published on preprint platforms. The objective was to analyze how the media covered non-peer-reviewed research, in countries marked by conflicting discourses prompted by the denialist attitude of their government leaders. The results show that the newspapers did not provide a detailed explanation of what a preprint platform is, how the process of publishing research results works, and the implications of a study that has not yet been peer reviewed. The analysis also reveals how these news outlets were guided by the anxiety from an unknown disease, focusing on research on drug trials and seroprevalence. The study leads us to reflect on the challenges and weaknesses of covering fast science and the need to broaden the public’s understanding of the methods and processes of science.

Science in motion: A qualitative analysis of journalists’ use and perception of preprints

“…Again, this aligns with findings from surveys by Massarani and colleagues 40,41 . However, this effort stands in contrast to those of recent content analyses, which found that journalists inconsistently identify scholarship mentioned in news articles as preprints, often describing it as “research” or simply hyperlinking to it 13,38 , and only sometimes explain what the term “preprint” means 14 . Further research into a potential disconnect between what professional practices journalists believe they do and what practices actually appear in their published work is needed.…”

“…Studies find that media stories mentioning COVID-19-related preprints early in the pandemic inconsistently described these studies as preliminary, unreviewed, in need of verification, or a “preprint” 13,38 . Those stories that do make the preprint status of the research clear tend to offer only a brief explanation (or none at all) of what the term preprint means or how it relates to the larger academic publishing system 14 . However, while these results shed some light on what audiences may encounter in preprint news coverage, they fail to capture what might be going on behind the scenes.…”

Using an expert survey and user feedback to construct PRECHECK: A checklist to evaluate preprints on COVID-19 and beyond

“…Though they are cited less, COVID-19 preprints are read, downloaded and engaged with just as much as publications (27,28), as they are more accessible to the non-scientific population. As such, preprints receive large attention on social and traditional media (43), but so far, their contents have not always been reported adequately (44,45).…”

“…An analysis of news stories published between January and July 2020 by The New York Times, The Guardian, and Folha de S. Paulo has found a serious lack of explanation of the publication process, of how preprint platforms work, and of the implications of non-peer-reviewed research (44). In response, most preprint servers now have disclaimers about the unverified nature of preprints (24), but many news reports still do not provide such information (45).…”

Science in motion: A qualitative analysis of journalists’ use and perception of preprints

“…In the absence of relevant peer-reviewed research, media coverage of COVID-19 preprints saw a parallel surge [11], with some journalists reporting on them for the first time [12]. This surge was not restricted to the domain of specialized health and science reporting but instead engaged a wide range of media outlets, including major generalist outlets, such as The New York Times and The Guardian [13,14]. On the one hand, this broad uptake may have benefited audiences, as many of the most highly covered preprints provided insights into key public health issues such as disease transmission, intervention, and treatment [11].…”