New preprint server for medical research

Rawlinson, Claire; Bloom, Theodora

doi:10.1136/bmj.l2301

Cited by 65 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 8 publications

(9 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This approach of sharing research as quickly as possible is very reasonable, especially in the case of such public health emergency. Previous studies have shown that preprints can accelerate progress in handling outbreaks of infectious disease [132,133].…”

Section: Date (2020)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a scoping review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background In December 2019, a pneumonia caused by a novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) emerged in Wuhan, China and has rapidly spread around the world since then. Aim This study aims to understand the research gaps related to COVID-19 and propose recommendations for future research. Methods We undertook a scoping review of COVID-19, comprehensively searching databases and other sources to identify literature on COVID-19 between 1 December 2019 and 6 February 2020. We analysed the sources, publication date, type and topic of the retrieved articles/studies. Results We included 249 articles in this scoping review. More than half (59.0%) were conducted in China. Guidance/guidelines and consensuses statements (n = 56; 22.5%) were the most common. Most (n = 192; 77.1%) articles were published in peer-reviewed journals, 35 (14.1%) on preprint servers and 22 (8.8%) posted online. Ten genetic studies (4.0%) focused on the origin of SARS-CoV-2 while the topics of molecular studies varied. Nine of 22 epidemiological studies focused on estimating the basic reproduction number of COVID-19 infection (R0). Of all identified guidance/guidelines (n = 35), only ten fulfilled the strict principles of evidence-based practice. The number of articles published per day increased rapidly until the end of January. Conclusion The number of articles on COVID-19 steadily increased before 6 February 2020. However, they lack diversity and are almost non-existent in some study fields, such as clinical research. The findings suggest that evidence for the development of clinical practice guidelines and public health policies will be improved when more results from clinical research becomes available.

show abstract

Section: Date (2020)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a scoping review

et al. 2020

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Such papers had a specific screening process involving a group of medically qualified bioRxiv Clinical Affiliates. In 2019, the success of this pilot resulted in the launch of a dedicated preprint server for clinical research, medRxiv (Bloom, 2019;Rawlinson, 2019), and the bioRxiv Epidemiology and Clinical Trials subject categories stopped accepting new papers.…”

Section: Preprint Screeningmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Researchers in physics, computational science, mathematics, and various other disciplines routinely post manuscripts on arXiv prior to peer review and by mid-2019 the site had posted more than 1.5M papers. Several attempts were made to replicate the approach in the biological sciences (Marshall, 1999;Nature Publishing Group, 2012;Rawlinson, 2019). These were unsuccessful in part because of opposition from traditional publishers but also because there was little interest among biologists.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

bioRxiv: the preprint server for biology

Grainger

Roeder

Hindle

et al. 2019

Preprint

121

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The traditional publication process delays dissemination of new research, often by months, sometimes by years. Preprint servers decouple dissemination of research papers from their evaluation and certification by journals, allowing researchers to share work immediately, receive feedback from a much larger audience, and provide evidence of productivity long before formal publication. Launched in 2013 as a non-profit community service, the bioRxiv server has brought preprint practice to the life sciences and recently posted its 64,000th manuscript. The server now receives more than four million views per month and hosts papers spanning all areas of biology. Initially dominated by evolutionary biology, genetics/genomics and computational biology, bioRxiv has been increasingly populated by papers in neuroscience, cell and developmental biology, and many other fields. Changes in journal and funder policies that encourage preprint posting have helped drive adoption, as has the development of bioRxiv technologies that allow authors to transfer papers easily between the server and journals. A bioRxiv user survey found that 42% of authors post their preprints prior to journal submission whereas 37% post concurrently with journal submission. Authors are motivated by a desire to share work early; they value the feedback they receive, and very rarely experience any negative consequences of preprint posting. Rapid dissemination via bioRxiv is also encouraging new initiatives that experiment with the peer review process and the development of novel approaches to literature filtering and assessment.

show abstract

“…Lack of a peer-review process in preprints may be an important implication, due to the fact that the basic screening process employed by preprint servers may not be enough to avoid the dissemination of awed information (18). For example, a preprint that was posted on bioRxiv suggested signi cant molecular similarities between SARS-CoV-2 and HIV (19).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pharmacological interventions for the COVID-19 pandemic and the use of preprint articles: The good, the bad and the ugly

Nicolalde

Añazco

Mushtaq

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Preprints are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. On Dec 2019, a novel coronavirus appeared in China, and since then, scientific production, including preprints, has drastically increased. In this study, we intend to evaluate how often preprints regarding pharmacological interventions against COVID-19 were cited, in spite of the fact that some of these preprints remained unpublished.Methods: We conducted a search on medRxiv and bioRxiv to identify preprints related to pharmacological interventions against SARS-CoV-2 from Jan 1st to Mar 31, 2020. We gathered metadata on included preprints and identified if they had been published in a peer-reviewed journal. We performed Mann-Whitney U tests to evaluate if published articles had differences in citation numbers or usage, as defined by PDF downloads and abstract views, when compared to preprints that were not published.Results: Our sample included 97 preprints, of which only 14 were published on peer-reviewed journals and 83 remained unpublished. The most common study designs we found among preprints were basic science research and case series. Published articles had a significantly higher number of citations and metrics (PDF and abstract downloads) when compared to unpublished preprints.Conclusions: The use of preprints during this pandemic has been higher than in previous outbreaks, however, the publication rate in peer-reviewed journals in our sample was low. Preprints should be used as a mean to display preliminary data rapidly in order to obtain feedback by the scientific community, or to guide further research. However, due to the lack of peer-review, and potentially flawed data analysis, preprints alone should not be used to guide clinical practice, as the risk of unwarranted modifications to management is concerning.

show abstract

New preprint server for medical research

Abstract: Announcing the launch of medRxiv for faster access to better evidence

Cited by 65 publications

References 8 publications

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a scoping review

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19): a scoping review

bioRxiv: the preprint server for biology

Pharmacological interventions for the COVID-19 pandemic and the use of preprint articles: The good, the bad and the ugly

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About