Openness, Integrity, Inclusion, and Innovation in Scholarly Communication: Competing or Complementary Forces?

Barbour, Virginia

doi:10.3389/frma.2021.767869

Cited by 4 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(8,(18)(19)(20)(21)(22)(23)(24)(25)(26)(27)(28)(29)(30)(31)(32)(33)(34) Preprints are considered to lack scientific integrity, credibility and quality, and there is still reservation among editors, publishers, journals and researchers about the role of preprints and their contribution to science. (6,30,(35)(36)(37)(38)(39) The evidence provided several process issues related to why preprints lack quality, screening, or quality checks during the submission of a manuscript to a preprint server. (28,40,41) It was reported that only three preprint servers (Research Square, bioRxiv and medRxiv) check if the content contains unfounded medical claims.…”

Section: Barriers and Challenges Associated With Preprintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, despite these developments, the evidence suggests that preprint policies vary between publishing companies and in some instances within the same publishing company and across research disciplines, which could hinder the progress and integrity of preprints. (30,35,36,38,39,66,70) Box 2 provides a summary of the key considerations for publishers and journals as summarised from the evidence.…”

Section: S3 Table: Publishers and Journals Preprints Policy Or Guidance)mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Needs to be clear, consistent and transparent policies on preprints (including policies in preprint servers), otherwise there will be distrust and the growth, acceptance of preprints will be minimal (requires integrity) and unclear preprint policies could hinder uptake of open research practices (disparity between disciplines results in unclear policies between publishers) (30,35,36,38,39,70) 6 13…”

Section: Researchers Funders Publishersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: a scoping review

Blatch-Jones¹,

Saucedo²,

Giddins³

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Preprints are open and accessible scientific manuscript or report that has not been submitted to a peer reviewed journal. The value and importance of preprints has grown since its contribution during the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders and publishers are establishing their position on the use of preprints, in grant applications and publishing models. However, the evidence supporting the use and acceptability of preprints varies across funders, publishers, and researchers. The purpose of this scoping review was to explore the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research lifecycle.Methods: A scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017-2022) to capture changes influenced by COVID-19 (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature, and two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science (24 August 2022). Results: 379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publications, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility, and validation). For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities).Conclusions: Preprints provide opportunities for rapid dissemination but there is a need for clear policies and guidance from journals, publishers, and funders. Cautionary measures are needed to maintain the quality and value of preprints, paying particular attention to how findings are translated to the public. More research is needed to address some of the uncertainties addressed in this review.

show abstract

Section: Barriers and Challenges Associated With Preprintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: S3 Table: Publishers and Journals Preprints Policy Or Guidance)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Researchers Funders Publishersmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: a scoping review

Blatch-Jones¹,

Saucedo²,

Giddins³

2023

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although preprints have been established in some disciplines for more than 20 years, the COVID-19 pandemic has revealed the rapid progress of preprints, both for their value and their shortcomings [8,10,[23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34][35][36][37][38][39]. Preprints are considered to lack scientific integrity, credibility and quality, and there is still reservation among editors, publishers, journals and researchers about the role of preprints and their contribution to science [4,6,35,[40][41][42][43].…”

Section: Barriers and Challenges Associated With Preprintsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…12 Publishers Needs to be clear, consistent and transparent policies on preprints (including policies in preprint servers), otherwise there will be distrust and the growth, acceptance of preprints will be minimal (requires integrity) and unclear preprint policies could hinder uptake of open research practices (disparity between disciplines results in unclear policies between publishers) [35,40,41,42,43,57].…”

Section: Quality Assurance and Trustworthiness (Including Misuse)mentioning

confidence: 99%

The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review

Blatch-Jones,

Recio Saucedo,

Giddins

2023

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Preprints are open and accessible scientific manuscript or report that is shared publicly, through a preprint server, before being submitted to a journal. The value and importance of preprints has grown since its contribution during the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders and publishers are establishing their position on the use of preprints, in grant applications and publishing models. However, the evidence supporting the use and acceptability of preprints varies across funders, publishers, and researchers. The scoping review explored the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research lifecycle. Methods A scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017–2022) to capture changes influenced by COVID-19 (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature, and two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science (24 August 2022). Results 379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publications, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility, and validation). For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities). Conclusions Preprints provide opportunities for rapid dissemination but there is a need for clear policies and guidance from journals, publishers, and funders. Cautionary measures are needed to maintain the quality and value of preprints, paying particular attention to how findings are translated to the public. More research is needed to address some of the uncertainties addressed in this review.

show abstract

COVID research is free to access — but for how long?

Noorden¹

2022

Nature

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, scientific journals rushed to make related research free to read -temporarily, at least. Work on the disease or the virus SARS-CoV-2 would be free "at least for the duration of the outbreak", publishers announced on 31 January 2020, the day after the World Health Organization declared the coronavirus outbreak a 'public-health emergency of international concern', or PHEIC. Now the pandemic is in its third year, and reports are circulating that the end of freeto-access COVID-19 research is nigh.The alarm was sounded in August, when a prominent open-access advocate warned that COVID-related research was going back behind paywalls (see go.nature. com/3dc5at9). "This is both disappointing and worrying," wrote Robert Kiley, head of strategy at cOAlition S in Strasbourg, France, the group of funders that supports the open-access Plan S initiative. Kiley cited an analysis of the effects of the COVID-19 open-sharing commitment, commissioned and co-funded by the London-based charity Wellcome, the funding agency UK Research and Innovation and the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation in Seattle, Washington. "Several [publishers] have already started re-introducing paywalls," said the paper, which was posted online in June before peer review (A. Chiarelli et al. Preprint at Zenodo https://doi.org/jjc4; 2022).The sentence had been included partly on the basis of "presumptions" by people interviewed in the study, and also because the authors noted that some publishers had shuttered online COVID-19 information portals, says Hannah Hope, the openresearch lead at Wellcome, which has spearheaded efforts to open up research in public-health emergencies. But it lacks direct evidence, she says. After being contacted by Nature, the authors issued a second version without the sentence.

show abstract

Openness, Integrity, Inclusion, and Innovation in Scholarly Communication: Competing or Complementary Forces?

Cited by 4 publications

References 9 publications

The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: a scoping review

The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: a scoping review

The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review

COVID research is free to access — but for how long?

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About