Preprint Servers’ Policies, Submission Requirements, and Transparency in Reporting and Research Integrity Recommendations

Abstract

with and without COVID-19, respectively, and the percentage of males was 66.5% and 54.9%, respectively. Ninety-two patients with COVID-19 and ARDS were propensity score matched to 92 patients with non-COVID-19 ARDS (Table). The etiologies for ARDS among the non-COVID-19-matched cohort were bacterial pneumonia (60%), aspiration (27%), influenza (7%), respiratory syncytial virus infection (2%), and Pneumocystis jiroveci pneumonia (2%). Patients with COVID-19 were more likely to develop gastrointestinal complications compared with those without COVID-19 (74% vs 37%; P < .001; incidence rate ratio, 2.33 [95% CI, 1.52-3.63]). The difference in incidence was more evident after the third day of critical illness (Figure). Specifically, patients with COVID-19 developed more transaminitis (55% vs 27%; P < .001), severe ileus (48% vs 22%; P < .001), and bowel ischemia (4% vs 0%; P = .04). Three of the 4 patients with COVID-19 and bowel ischemia were taken to the operating room and had intraoperative findings consistent with COVID-19 bowel as previously described in different patients. 3 Pathology findings demonstrated fibrin thrombi in the microvasculature underlying areas of necrosis. Discussion | This study found a higher rate of gastrointestinal complications, including mesenteric ischemia, in critically ill patients with COVID-19 compared with propensity scorematched patients without COVID-19, suggesting a distinct phenotype for COVID-19 compared with conventional ARDS. High expression of angiotensin-converting enzyme 2 receptors along the epithelial lining of the gut that act as host-cell receptors for SARS-CoV-2 could explain involvement of abdominal organs. 5 Higher opioid requirements and COVID-19-induced coagulopathy may also explain the disproportionately high rate of ileus and ischemic bowel disease. 2 Differences in duration of illness did not seem to explain the differences in gastrointestinal complications. Limitations of this study include the single center and the unavailability of inflammatory markers to use for matching. Further translational studies are warranted to examine the pathophysiology of these findings.

Analysis of single comments left for bioRxiv preprints till September 2019

“…The practice of sharing preprints, authors' versions of non-peer reviewed manuscripts, is on the rise. Once almost exclusively limited to the fields of high energy physics and economics on arXiv, RePec and SSRN preprint servers, preprints have gained much ground across a wide range of disciplines, including medical biochemistry and laboratory medicine (1). Preprints are also increasingly indexed in large scholarly databases and search engines (e.g., PubMed, Crossref, Lens, Dimensions, Microsoft Academic), and major manual referencing styles have issued guidance on how preprints should be cited in scholarly papers (2,3).…”

“…In 2020, the COVID-19 pandemic led to a large increase in the posting of preprints, as well as scrutiny and the number of comments they received on both social media platforms (e.g., Twitter) and comment sections of servers on which they are posted, with some comments prompting preprint retractions (5,6). However, despite 70% of preprint servers allowing users to post comments on their platforms, and researchers perceiving the possibility of receiving comments as one of the advantages of preprints compared to traditional publishing, no research, to the best of our knowledge, has examined the nature of comments or actors involved in preprint commenting (1,2,7). In this study, which originated before the COVID-19 pandemic, we aimed to conduct an exploratory analysis of type of comments left on the bioRxiv servers.…”

Using preprints in evidence synthesis: Commentary on experience during the COVID-19 pandemic

“… [3] Editorial staff of preprint servers perform screening checks related to article scope, plagiarism and compliance with legal or ethical standards. [ 4 , 5 ] The majority of preprint servers provide a DOI for each manuscript. [4] Manuscripts will remain on the servers and while up to a third will later be published in peer-reviewed journals (resulting in multiple versions of the same study [6] ), some may never be submitted for peer review or be accepted.…”

Attitudes and Practices of Open Data, Preprinting, and Peer-review - a Cross Sectional Study on Croatian Scientists

“…Other scholarly fields have been slower to adapt to the preprint culture: with bioRxiv, a preprint server dedicated to the biological sciences, originating in 2013, and MedRxiv, a server for clinical research preprints, in June of 2019 (16). Today, there are more than 60 preprint servers in the world covering all scientific fields (17), and the number of preprints is on the rise, fueled even by the the COVID-19 pandemic (18).…”