Preprints in times of COVID19: the time is ripe for agreeing on terminology and good practices

Abstract

Over recent years, the research community has been increasingly using preprint servers to share manuscripts that are not yet peer-reviewed. Even if it enables quick dissemination of research findings, this practice raises several challenges in publication ethics and integrity. In particular, preprints have become an important source of information for stakeholders interested in COVID19 research developments, including traditional media, social media, and policy makers. Despite caveats about their nature, many users can still confuse pre-prints with peer-reviewed manuscripts. If unconfirmed but already widely shared first-draft results later prove wrong or misinterpreted, it can be very difficult to “unlearn” what we thought was true. Complexity further increases if unconfirmed findings have been used to inform guidelines. To help achieve a balance between early access to research findings and its negative consequences, we formulated five recommendations: (a) consensus should be sought on a term clearer than ‘pre-print’, such as ‘Unrefereed manuscript’, “Manuscript awaiting peer review” or ‘’Non-reviewed manuscript”; (b) Caveats about unrefereed manuscripts should be prominent on their first page, and each page should include a red watermark stating ‘Caution—Not Peer Reviewed’; (c) pre-print authors should certify that their manuscript will be submitted to a peer-review journal, and should regularly update the manuscript status; (d) high level consultations should be convened, to formulate clear principles and policies for the publication and dissemination of non-peer reviewed research results; (e) in the longer term, an international initiative to certify servers that comply with good practices could be envisaged.

Efficacy and safety of IL-6 inhibitors in patients with COVID-19 pneumonia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of multicentre, randomized trials

“…However, analysis of our data using a similar approach did not lead to change in magnitude and direction of results. We also analysed risk of bias using somewhat more restrictive criteria for unpublished, open-label and single-centre trials, and therefore our risk of bias analysis results in a lower proportion of low risk of bias studies [ 22 – 25 ]. Finally, we also performed a TSA.…”

“…Two trained investigators evaluated each item and provided an overall judgement of low risk, high risk, some concerns or unclear risk of bias. Trials with published results that did not underwent peer-review [ 22 ], single-centre trials [ 23 , 24 ], and open-label trials [ 25 ], were considered to have at least “some concerns” of bias.…”

Governance frameworks for COVID-19 research ethics review and oversight in Latin America: an exploratory study

“…During the ongoing pandemic, there has been an explosion of preprints publications (i.e., publications which have not yet passed adequate quality control, e.g., peer-reviewed) in multiple websites to facilitate rapid dissemination of COVID-19 research results among the scientific community. However, as preprints are widely accessed by non-scientific audiences (e.g., the media, general public, policymakers), it has been highlighted the importance of having good preprints publication practices to accurately describe their purpose in order to avoid confusion with peer-reviewed manuscripts and prevent public harm (e.g., public health decision-making, or clinical practice based on unconfirmed results) [ 33 , 34 ]. Protocols should therefore include plans for rapid dissemination of research data with participants, communities, health authorities, and the scientific community while ensuring scientific integrity standards.…”

Timeliness of reporting of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence results and their utility for infectious disease surveillance

“…11 However, the generalizability and validity of such non-peer-reviewed evidence has been questioned. 12,13 It remains unclear whether these alternative platforms do indeed lead to faster reporting compared to scientific journals, and whether the ability to bypass peer-review has resulted in prolific publication of weaker evidence.…”