In praise of preprints

Fry, Norman K.; Marshall, Helina; Mellins-Cohen, Tasha

doi:10.1099/mgen.0.000259

Cited by 30 publications

(44 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Initially developed in the field of physics and economy (e.g., arXiv, RePEc), this practice is now spreading to the medical world and other domains of research. Preprints were the fastest-growing of all types of research output (around 30%) in 2016-2018, compared with article growth of 2-3% (5).…”

Section: The Evolution Of Scientific Publicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Preprints in Medicine: Useful or Harmful?

Bonnechère

2020

Front. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: The Evolution Of Scientific Publicationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Concerning the content, some journals, such as the New England Journal of Medicine or Science, view draft preprints as prior publications (prior art, see above) and, thus, they are unacceptable as new manuscript submissions (5).…”

Section: From a Publisher Perspectivementioning

confidence: 99%

Preprints in Medicine: Useful or Harmful?

Bonnechère

2020

Front. Med.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For further discussion of the benefits and limitations of pre-prints, see Bourne, Polka, Vale, and Kiley (2017) and Fry, Marshal, and Mellins-Cohen (2019).…”

Section: Open Access To Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

The open-access availability of criminological research to practitioners and policy makers

Ashby¹

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Matthew Ashby is lecturer in crime science at the Jill Dando Institute of Security and Crime Science at University College London (UCL). He conducts research on crime analysisparticularly how crime concentrates in time and space -crime prevention and transport crime. As a former police officer, he is also interested in evidence-based policy and practice. He is an unpaid associate editor of Crime Science, a pure open-access journal published by Springer Nature.This is the version of this article submitted to to a journal for publication. It has not yet been peer reviewed. It may vary from the final published version. Abstract Research summaryCriminology produces policy-relevant research and criminologists often seek to influence practice, but most criminological research is confined to expensive subscription journals. This disadvantages researchers in the global south, policy makers and practitioners who have the skills to use research findings but do not have journal subscriptions. Open access seeks to increase availability of research, but take-up among criminologists has been low. This study used a sample of 12,541 articles published in criminology journals between 2017 and 2019 to estimate that 22% of research was available to non-subscribers, about half that found in other disciplines, even though authors had the right to make articles open without payment in at least 95% of cases.Open access was even less common in many leading journals and among researchers in the United States. Policy implicationsThree quarters of new criminological knowledge is hidden from policy makers 3 Open access has the potential to increase access to research for those outside academia, but few scholars exercise their existing rights to distribute freely the submitted or accepted versions of their articles online. Policies to incentivise authors to make research open access where possible are needed unlock the benefits of greater access to criminological research.

show abstract

“…During the COVID19 pandemic, it is reported that 6,753 preprints have been shared within 4 months of the first confirmed case (Fraser et al, 2020). While sharing preprints allow authors to establish priority for their work, get citations and have more visibility of their work and can also show the proof of their work to seek funding Fry et al (2019), there is a caution for the readers and the reporters. Guterman and Braunstein (2020) opines that communication of clinical research results as preprints may mislead the policy makers and the public which otherwise not possible if the manuscripts are peer reviewed methodologies are corrected.…”

Section: Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preprints South Asia Survey 2020: A Report

Das¹,

Gutam²

2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A survey on conducted to know the status of awareness and attitude particularly towards preprints among the research scholars, scientists and librarians in the South Asian region during the months of April and May 2020 had maximum responses from India (83.71%) and majority of Agricultural Sciences (54%) discipline. Respondents ranked ‘Journal’s Impact Factor’ at the top factor for selecting journals to publish. Seventy five percent had at least 25% of their publications in Open Access and had paid the APCs (65.33%) for publications and the source of funds are personal pooling (30.34%). While 61.72% read preprints, 27.03% have not heard about preprints and 11.26% never read the preprints. However, those read, 64.42% trust the preprints. And why they share preprints is because of ‘belief in open access’ (39.91%), ‘rapid feedback’ (23.53%) and ‘timely sharing results’ (21.72%). With regard to citing preprints, 60.36% never cited any preprints and 79.73% respondent’s preprints were never cited. However, the respondents mentioned that indexing, citing, visibility, consideration in assessment & evaluation will motivate the authors to share preprints.

show abstract

In praise of preprints

Cited by 30 publications

References 15 publications

Preprints in Medicine: Useful or Harmful?

Preprints in Medicine: Useful or Harmful?

The open-access availability of criminological research to practitioners and policy makers

Preprints South Asia Survey 2020: A Report

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About