Preprints: Their Evolving Role in Science Communication

Puebla, Iratxe; Polka, Jessica; Rieger, Oya Y.

doi:10.3998/mpub.12412508

Cited by 20 publications

(23 citation statements)

References 58 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They have removed barriers to research communication and have particularly benefited early-career researchers, who use them to share their work on their own terms, to show productivity, and to receive valuable feedback from a vast community of peers [ 12 , 13 ]. However, the rapid growth of preprint servers has also introduced some challenges and complexity into the environment of scholarly publication [ 14 ]. The many new preprint servers that have emerged in the past few years have varying budgets, governance, and features as well as disparate policies and operating procedures.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Downstream retraction of preprinted research in the life and medical sciences

Avissar-Whiting

2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retractions have been on the rise in the life and clinical sciences in the last decade, likely due to both broader accessibility of published scientific research and increased vigilance on the part of publishers. In this same period, there has been a greater than ten-fold increase in the posting of preprints by researchers in these fields. While this development has significantly accelerated the rate of research dissemination and has benefited early-career researchers eager to show productivity, it has also introduced challenges with respect to provenance tracking, version linking, and, ultimately, back-propagation of events such as corrigenda, expressions of concern, and retractions that occur on the journal-published version. The aim of this study was to understand the extent of this problem among preprint servers that routinely link their preprints to the corollary versions published in journals. To present a snapshot of the current state of downstream retractions of articles preprinted in three large preprint servers (Research Square, bioRxiv, and medRxiv), the DOIs of the journal-published versions linked to preprints were matched to entries in the Retraction Watch database. A total of 30 retractions were identified, representing only 0.01% of all content posted on these servers. Of these, 11 retractions were clearly noted by the preprint servers; however, the existence of a preprint was only acknowledged by the retracting journal in one case. The time from publication to retraction averaged 278 days, notably lower than the average for articles overall (839 days). In 70% of cases, retractions downstream of preprints were due–at least in part–to ethical or procedural misconduct. In 63% of cases, the nature of the retraction suggested that the conclusions were no longer reliable. Over time, the lack of propagation of critical information across the publication life cycle will pose a threat to the scholarly record and to scientific integrity. It is incumbent on preprint servers, publishers, and the systems that connect them to address these issues before their scale becomes untenable.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Downstream retraction of preprinted research in the life and medical sciences

Avissar-Whiting

2022

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With the launch of arXiv in 1991, it was physics researchers who created a public online repository for unpublished manuscripts rather than circulating them privately via email or, before that, postal mail. In the years that followed, parallel efforts popped up in other fields, including a repository for clinical research created by BMJ in 1999 and later shuttered due to low usage [ 3 ]. As preprint sharing in the life sciences has increased over the past decade, an extensive debate has unfolded about applying this practice to medical research, given the risks of propagating erroneous information that stands to have an impact on human health [ 4 ].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitating preprint sharing in the health sciences

LaFlamme

Bosurgi

2022

PLoS Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Preprints are a means of scholarly communication that have attracted special attention in relation to COVID-19 research (Fraser et al , 2021; Brierley et al , 2022; Puebla et al , 2021). They allow researchers to share their findings and data at the point the research is completed, ahead of peer review.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Among the new trends related to preprints in life sciences are a growing number of preprint platforms operating under different models of ownership and governance (over 50 platforms); a closer integration of preprint servers with journal workflows; a continuous increase of papers posted as preprints and use of preprints in policy documents (Puebla et al , 2021, Fraser et al , 2021).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is also advisable to consult with medical librarians as they “have a potential role in helping researchers … when they make decisions on how to communicate their work, and in reporting outputs for research assessment. They are also interested in contributing to open science and supporting new business models and community-based initiatives” (Puebla et al , 2021). Librarians' advice could be also of value when you decide to deposit the post-print version of your paper in your institutional repository or relevant not-for-profit subject repository or post it on your private or corporate website (green open access).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Editorial: Preprints and peer-reviewed journals

Ibragimova¹,

Phagava

2022

IJHG

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

They allow researchers to share their findings and data at the point the research is completed, ahead of peer review. In the biomedical field, preprints are usually completed research, written up as a full paper that can be submitted to a journal. Most preprints do not change substantially between preprint and published version (Brierley et al., 2022). But even before the pandemic, preprints have been defined as an important feature of modern scholarly communication in life sciences (Berg et al., 2016).Major motivations for the use of preprints are early discovery; free access; immediate feedback from the scientific community (Maggio et al., 2018); increased citations and media mentions (Fraser et al., 2020). Though it has changed during the pandemic, still the standard advice is that the press should not report on preprints, and institutions should not promote preprints to the press (Fox, 2020). Specialists in scholarly communication have also discussed issues concerning the potential risks related to this format: lack of longer-term financial sustainability of some preprint servers, jeopardizing the role of scientific journals in academia, risking the scientific integrity and soundness, erroneously claiming of authorship and stewardship, scooping of research, financial transparency and grant contracts, copyright ownership, intellectual property rights, public disclosures and patent applications, and journal and institutional policies conflicts (Chaleplioglou and Koulouris, 2021). Still, many of these perceived risks are similar to issues with the existing journal system, and there is no current evidence that the situation will worsen with preprints: "In practice, these tendencies are mitigated by the powerful driving force of scientists to develop and maintain a good reputation within the scientific community. Reputation is the single most important factor for developing a sustained career in the sciences" (Preprint FAQ https://asapbio.org/preprintinfo/preprint-faq#qaef-643).Among the new trends related to preprints in life sciences are a growing number of preprint platforms operating under different models of ownership and governance (over 50 platforms); a closer integration of preprint servers with journal workflows; a continuous increase of papers posted as preprints and use of preprints in policy documents (Puebla et al., 2021, Fraser et al., 2021.Though the vast majority of peer-reviewed journals in the life sciences encourage or allow preprints, it is always recommended that researchers check the journal's publication policy prior to depositing their preprints, as the compatibility of publishing a preprint in a peer-reviewed journal could meet three types of restrictions: by the server type (for profit or non-for-profit, commercial or not), the paper version (posting of the revised manuscript) and the licence of preprint distribution (Chaleplioglou and Koulouris, 2021).Similar approach is applied by the journals from the Emerald Publishing (now part of the Cambridge Information Group). When you submit you...

show abstract

Preprints: Their Evolving Role in Science Communication

Cited by 20 publications

References 58 publications

Downstream retraction of preprinted research in the life and medical sciences

Downstream retraction of preprinted research in the life and medical sciences

Facilitating preprint sharing in the health sciences

Editorial: Preprints and peer-reviewed journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About