Publish or perish: reporting characteristics of peer-reviewed publications, pre-prints and registered studies on the COVID-19 pandemic

Abstract

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in a mass of academic papers being published in a very brief span of time. Our aim was to compare the amount and reporting characteristics of COVID-19 related peer-reviewed and pre-prints publications. We also investigated the amount of ongoing trials and systematic reviews. Methods and findings A cross-sectional study of publications covering the COVID-19 pandemic time frame, up to May 20, 2020 was conducted. PubMed with appropriate combinations of Medical Subject Headings and COVID-19 section of MedRxiv and BioRxiv archives were searched. We examined Clinicaltrial.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, EU Register and 15 other trial registers as well as the international prospective register of systematic reviews (PROSPERO). Characteristics of each publication source were extracted. Regression analyses and Z tests were used to analyze publication trends over the weeks and compare their relative proportions. We found 3635 peer-reviewed publications and 3805 pre-prints, of which 8.6% (n=329) were published in indexed journals. Peer-reviewed and pre-print publications amount both increased significantly over time (p<0.001). Case reports (peer-reviewed: 6% vs pre-prints: 0.9%, p<0.001) and letters (17.4% vs 0.5%, p<0.001) accounted for a greater share of the peer-reviewed compared to pre-print publications. In turn, randomized controlled trials (0.22% vs 0.63% p<0.001) and systematic reviews (0.08% vs 5%) accounted for a significantly greater share of the pre-print publications. Clinicaltrials.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry and EU register included 57.9%, 49.5 % and 98.9% trials mostly still 'recruiting'. PROSPERO amounted to 962 systematic review protocols. Conclusion Pre-prints were slightly more prevalent than peer-reviewed publications, yet both are growing. To fill the void given by the absence of published primary studies, immediate opinions (i.e., letters) has virulently been published in PubMed. However, preprints has been promoted as rapid responses to give direct and promptly access at scientific findings in this pandemic.

COVID-19 Preprints and Their Publishing Rate: An Improved Method

“…My analysis reveals that around 15% of COVID-19 preprint manuscripts in CORD-19 dataset uploaded on three major repository servers between January and early August 2020 were published in a peer-reviewed venue. As I predicted, when compare to the more recent COVID-19 preprint's conversion rate of 8.6% (Gianola et al, 2020), the results suggest a near two-fold increase. We can compare our measure to Gianola et al's finding without arXiv preprints since they did not include that server in their sample, our conversion rate increased by nearly 1% to 15.91%.…”

“…The copyright holder for this preprint this version posted September 7, 2020. ; https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.09.04.20188771 doi: medRxiv preprint Findings on publishing practices during the early phase of the pandemic indicate that only 8.6% (n=329) of the 3,805 medRxiv and bioRxiv COVID-19 preprints uploaded up to May 20, 2020 were published in peer-reviewed venues (Gianola et al, 2020). The only other research measuring medRxiv and bioRxiv COVID-19 preprints uploaded up to April 31 st , 2020 report a publishing rate of 4% (n=101) (Fraser et al, 2020).…”

People with Disabilities and Other Forms of Vulnerability to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Study Protocol for a Scoping Review and Thematic Analysis

“…Databases searches were conducted in mid-July and will be repeated when the initial synthesis has been completed, estimated to be 1 or 2 months later. Given the pace of current publications on COVID-19, 58 this update is likely key.…”

“…Publications regarding COVID-19 are currently more recent and more common on preprint servers than in peer-reviewed publications. 58 Accordingly, we will also search 3 databases for preprint literature (ie, MedRxiv, SocArXiv, and PsyArXiv), and this search will be updated under the same terms. Supplemental appendix S1 (available online only at http://www.archives-pmr.org/ ) details the search strategy for each of the preprint servers.…”

“…Indeed, commentaries, letters, and editorials have been prevalent in the peer-reviewed literature related to COVID-19. 58 On the other hand, we aim to address exploratory research questions and map the breadth of the existing literature on a topic, not to review the efficacy or effectiveness of interventions (or diagnostic tests) or test a prespecified hypothesis, for which a quality assessment, grading, and related eligibility decisions would be key. Also, there is a risk of not being exhaustive or representative of the world’s different cultures, responses, or perspectives in the review of gray literature, in part owing to the restriction of English-language material.…”