Preprint citation practice in PLOS

Abstract

The role of preprints in the scientific production and their part in citations have been growing over the past 10 years. In this paper we study preprint citations in several different aspects: the progression of preprint citations over time, their relative frequencies in relation to the IMRaD structure of articles, their distributions over time, per preprint database and per PLOS journal. We have processed the PLOS corpus that covers 7 journals and a total of about 240,000 articles up to January 2021, and produced a dataset of 8460 preprint citation contexts that cite 12 different preprint databases. Our results show that preprint citations are found with the highest frequency in the Method section of articles, though small variations exist with respect to journals. The PLOS Computational Biology journal stands out as it contains more than three times more preprint citations than any other PLOS journal. The relative parts of the different preprint databases are also examined. While ArXiv and bioRxiv are the most frequent citation sources, bioRxiv’s disciplinary nature can be observed as it is the source of more than 70% of preprint citations in PLOS Biology, PLOS Genetics and PLOS Pathogens. We have also compared the lexical content of preprint citation contexts to the citation content to peer-reviewed publications. Finally, by performing a lexicometric analysis, we have shown that preprint citation contexts differ significantly from citation contexts of peer-reviewed publications. This confirms that authors make use of different lexical content when citing preprints compared to the rest of citations.

Characterizing Adolescents' Dietary Intake by Taste: Results From the UK National Diet and Nutrition Survey

“…The “never tried” responses were excluded from the analysis. The number of clusters was determined based on the dendrogram and assessment of the scree plot ( 43 ). The identified tastes were allocated to individual food items in the NDNS.…”

Exploring Neuroscience Researchers’ Trust in Preprints through Citation Analysis

“…In addition, the current study revealed a prevalence of neuroscience researchers citing preprints throughout their publications, with a particular emphasis in the introduction section. It is important to note that introductions typically contain more citations than other sections to establish context and prior research (Bertin & Atanassova, 2022). However, Bertin and Atanassova's (2022) research on examination of PLOS journal citations indicated a higher frequency of preprint citations within the methodology section.…”

“…It is important to note that introductions typically contain more citations than other sections to establish context and prior research (Bertin & Atanassova, 2022). However, Bertin and Atanassova's (2022) research on examination of PLOS journal citations indicated a higher frequency of preprint citations within the methodology section. Note that the current research considers absolute number, but Bertin and Atanassova's (2022) research considered relative number (i.e.…”

“…For instance, many senior and junior researchers might publish preprints to be able to cite them in their grant applications but not to provide the community with unconstrained accessibility. Furthermore, since different lexical contents are used for citing preprints (Bertin & Atanassova, 2022), linguistic content analysis of these lexical contents can be informative of both the trust put in preprints and the credibility of preprints in the scientific community. Moreover, since early career researchers can publish preprints to show productivity and receive recognition (Rong & Ludo, 2023), a closer look at the scientific profiles of the authors of preprints can shed light on the contributions of preprints as who they cater for the most in the scientific community.…”

“…On an apparent negative note, preprints do not go through the traditional formal peer-review and this is one of the main reasons behind trust issues towards preprints (Arnold et al, 2021; Rong & Ludo, 2023). In relation to this, an analysis of citations to preprints in PLOS journals has shown that preprints are more frequently cited in the “methods” section as compared to other sections of an article (Bertin & Atanassova, 2022); however, different lexical contents (i.e., terminology and linguistic characteristics) are used for citations to emphasize that they are so-called “non-validated” preprints and not peer-reviewed publications (Bertin & Atanassova, 2022). Although peer-review is considered as a standard quality control process, peer-reviewed publication can also be subject to several drawbacks, including inordinate wait times and reliance on (potentially biased) human judgment (Wingen et al, 2022).…”