Reporting of funding and conflicts of interest improved from preprints to peer-reviewed publications of biomedical research

Itani, Dima; Lababidi, Ghena; Itani, Rola; Ghoul, Tala El; Hamade, Lama; Hijazi, Ayat R A; Khabsa, Joanne; Akl, Elie A.

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.06.008

Cited by 11 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(3,22,58) Most preprints do not differ substantially from the published peer-reviewed article, although there may be variation, there was no evidence that key sections of articles, such as results, changed between preprints and published versions. (11,19,20,31,38,59) Brierley et al (2021) found minimal changes were requested to preprint conclusions, suggesting that the entire publication pipeline is having a minimal but beneficial effect upon preprints and this was supported in the evidence. (11,19,20,31,38,59) Moreover, the conclusions of 7.2% of non-COVID-19 related and 17.2% of COVID-19 related abstracts underwent only a discrete change (e.g., additional details on the funding statement) by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not qualitatively change the conclusions of the paper.…”

Section: Benefits and Value Of Preprintsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…(11,19,20,31,38,59) Brierley et al (2021) found minimal changes were requested to preprint conclusions, suggesting that the entire publication pipeline is having a minimal but beneficial effect upon preprints and this was supported in the evidence. (11,19,20,31,38,59) Moreover, the conclusions of 7.2% of non-COVID-19 related and 17.2% of COVID-19 related abstracts underwent only a discrete change (e.g., additional details on the funding statement) by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not qualitatively change the conclusions of the paper. (20) As mentioned by Kaiser and others, intellectual 'scooping' and plagiarising have been regarded as a barrier to preprints.…”

Section: Benefits and Value Of Preprintsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…(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 4 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