Rise of the preprint: how rapid data sharing during COVID-19 has changed science forever

Clare Watson

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41591-021-01654-6

IF: 82.9

2022-01-01

Nature Medicine

Abstract:Medical discoveries have been shared at an unprecedented pace during the COVID-19 pandemic, but so have fraudulent studies, which has led to worries about scientific integrity.

biochemistry & molecular biology,cell biology,medicine, research & experimental

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape

Nicholas Fraser,Liam Brierley,Gautam Dey,Jessica K. Polka,Máté Pálfy,Federico Nanni,Jonathon Alexis Coates

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959

IF: 9.8

2021-04-02

PLoS Biology

Abstract:The world continues to face a life-threatening viral pandemic. The virus underlying the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), has caused over 98 million confirmed cases and 2.2 million deaths since January 2020. Although the most recent respiratory viral pandemic swept the globe only a decade ago, the way science operates and responds to current events has experienced a cultural shift in the interim. The scientific community has responded rapidly to the COVID-19 pandemic, releasing over 125,000 COVID-19–related scientific articles within 10 months of the first confirmed case, of which more than 30,000 were hosted by preprint servers. We focused our analysis on bioRxiv and medRxiv, 2 growing preprint servers for biomedical research, investigating the attributes of COVID-19 preprints, their access and usage rates, as well as characteristics of their propagation on online platforms. Our data provide evidence for increased scientific and public engagement with preprints related to COVID-19 (COVID-19 preprints are accessed more, cited more, and shared more on various online platforms than non-COVID-19 preprints), as well as changes in the use of preprints by journalists and policymakers. We also find evidence for changes in preprinting and publishing behaviour: COVID-19 preprints are shorter and reviewed faster. Our results highlight the unprecedented role of preprints and preprint servers in the dissemination of COVID-19 science and the impact of the pandemic on the scientific communication landscape.

biochemistry & molecular biology,biology
Stark Decline in Journalists' Use of Preprints Post-pandemic

Juan Pablo Alperin,Kenneth Shores,Alice Fleerackers,Natascha Chtena

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/10755470241285405

2024-09-13

Abstract:The COVID-19 pandemic accelerated the use of preprints, aiding rapid research dissemination but also facilitating the spread of misinformation. This study analyzes media coverage of preprints from 2014 to 2023, revealing a significant post-pandemic decline. Our findings suggest that heightened awareness of the risks associated with preprints has led to more cautious media practices. While the decline in preprint coverage may mitigate concerns about premature media exposure, it also raises questions about the future role of preprints in science communication, especially during emergencies. Balanced policies based on up-to-date evidence are needed to address this shift.

Digital Libraries,Physics and Society
The Impact of Preprints on COVID-19 Research Dissemination: A Quantitative Analysis of Journal Publications

Hiroyuki Tsunoda,Yuan Sun,Masaki Nishizawa,Xiaomin Liu,Kou Amano,Rie Kominami

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.05.28.596359

2024-05-29

Abstract:Preprints have played an unprecedented role in disseminating COVID-19-related science results to the public. The study aims to elucidate the role of preprints during the COVID-19 public health emergency (2020-2023) through a quantitative analysis of journal papers. Among the 247,854 COVID-19-related papers published in PubMed, 12,152 were initially released as preprints and were eventually published in 1,380 journals. This number is more than five times the 246 journals to which submissions can be made directly from bioRxiv through the B2J program. Journals with higher impact factors and Normalized Eigenfactor scores tend to publish a larger number of preprint-derived articles. The proportion of preprints among PubMed papers was 0.049, but this varies significantly by journal. In the top 30 journals, most exceed this proportion, indicating that these journals are preferred by authors for submitting their work. These findings highlight the growing acceptance and impact of preprints in the scientific community, particularly in high-impact journals.

Scientific Communication and Education
Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic

Liam Brierley,Federico Nanni,Jessica K. Polka,Gautam Dey,Máté Pálfy,Nicholas Fraser,Jonathon Alexis Coates

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3001285

IF: 9.8

2022-02-01

PLoS Biology

Abstract:Amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, preprints in the biomedical sciences are being posted and accessed at unprecedented rates, drawing widespread attention from the general public, press, and policymakers for the first time. This phenomenon has sharpened long-standing questions about the reliability of information shared prior to journal peer review. Does the information shared in preprints typically withstand the scrutiny of peer review, or are conclusions likely to change in the version of record? We assessed preprints from bioRxiv and medRxiv that had been posted and subsequently published in a journal through April 30, 2020, representing the initial phase of the pandemic response. We utilised a combination of automatic and manual annotations to quantify how an article changed between the preprinted and published version. We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, the conclusions of 7.2% of non-COVID-19–related and 17.2% of COVID-19–related abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not qualitatively change the conclusions of the paper.

biochemistry & molecular biology,biology
COVID-19-Related manuscripts: lag from preprint to publication

,Emily Drzymalla,Wei Yu,Muin J. Khoury,Marta Gwinn

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13104-022-06231-9

2022-11-05

BMC Research Notes

Abstract:Preprints have had a prominent role in the swift scientific response to COVID-19. Two years into the pandemic, we investigated how much preprints had contributed to timely data sharing by analyzing the lag time from preprint posting to journal publication.
COVID-19 Pandemic and Research Publications; Necessity of Maintaining Scientific Integrity

D Qaiser

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21467/ias.10.1.1-6

2020-09-04

International Annals of Science

Abstract:Since the COVID-19 outbreak began in China, scientists and health professionals have rushed to understand and mitigate the threat, however, its root cause, spreading characteristic, effective way to control as well as therapeutical approaches are still a mystery and matter of scientific debate. In an effort to fight against this disease scientists also rushed for a global collaborative approach by sharing their findings so that others can use known information. In view of such emergency scientific journals took steps to expedite the peer review process for coronavirus-related manuscripts which poses another challenge of scientific integrity. Community attention on integrity brought another concern where many authors argue against the idea of peer-review exception which compromises high standard for quality in the name of crisis situations. In the space of eight months, the research community’s response to COVID-19 gives rise to a large volume of paper submission which required rigorous reviewing and of course huge amount of time however, it’s also time which demands fastest publication of the latest finding. To balance in scientific integrity of scholarly journal as well as crisis demand to expedite dissemination of known knowledge, AIJR took a unique approach for COVID-19 related manuscript submission to Int. Ann. Sci. only through AIJR preprints invitation. In this approach author shall post COVID-19 related articles to AIJR Preprints and if it seems suitable for further peer-reviewing, author will get invited to submit to Int. Ann Sci. otherwise author will be advised to improve the article with an updated version. In this way the latest finding can get disseminated immediately as a preprint and after submission to the journal it can undergo standard reviewing process to maintain the scientific integrity. Although invitation through preprints serves both purpose of fastest dissemination and the journal can maintain scientific integrity, preprint may have its own risk for sharing non-reviewed version which may include dishonest findings. The only way to make preprints a great place for accelerated publishing and minimize associated risk of sharing non-reviewed findings is that the authors, readers, and most importantly media reporters act in a vigilant manner by following the sharing responsibility and guidelines adhering to the highest ethical standards.
Adjusting the use of preprints to accommodate the 'quality' factor in response to COVID-19

Jaime A Teixeira da Silva

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtumed.2021.04.003

2021-05-29

Abstract:Preprints are typically crude precursors of peer-reviewed papers that are placed almost immediately, save for some superficial screening, on an open-access repository to allow the information to reach readers quickly, circumventing the long-drawn process typically associated with processing in peer-reviewed journals. For early-career researchers who might be enthusiastic about obtaining some recognition for their efforts, or wanting open and public input about their work, preprints are certainly a useful publication choice. However, if health-related data and information have not been carefully scrutinised, they may pose a risk and may even serve as a source of public health misinformation. Surging growth and competition among preprint servers, coupled with a massive volume of COVID-19-related preprints, mainly on bioRxiv and medRxiv, as well as select indexing now being tested on PubMed, suggests that preprints are being increasingly used in the biomedical sciences. Stronger and more robust ethical policies are needed to screen preprints before they are released to the public, and even if this implies a slight delay in publication, it may increase academics' trust in this form of scientific information and communication. Clear and stringent ethical policies need to be urgently introduced by ethics groups such as COPE and the ICMJE, whose many member journals allow preprints to be posted before traditional peer review. Stringent ethical guidelines that treat misconduct equally in preprints and peer-reviewed papers will boost the integrity of academic publishing.
Reporting preprints in the media during the COVID-19 pandemic

François van Schalkwyk,Jonathan Dudek

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/09636625221077392

2022-02-23

Public Understanding of Science

Abstract:Preprints have gained prominence in the dissemination of scientific findings. This development has been reinforced by the COVID-19 pandemic, which continues to require the rapid dissemination of new scientific information. However, since preprints usually have not undergone peer review, they lack the rigour of other scientific publications such as journal articles. This presents a challenge for the news media tasked with keeping the public informed about the latest scientific developments in the context of great uncertainty during a global pandemic. This research note investigates the reporting of scientific information from preprints in 80 news articles identified in news articles related to COVID-19 published in four South African online media outlets. Our results show that despite the publication of guidelines for reporting on preprints in the media, there is still a way to go regarding the judicious use of scientific information from preprints by the news media.

communication,history & philosophy of science
COVID-19 research: pandemic versus "paperdemic", integrity, values and risks of the "speed science"

Ricardo Jorge Dinis-Oliveira

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/20961790.2020.1767754

2020-06-10

Abstract:Scientific integrity is a learned skill. When researchers and students learn integrity in laboratories or in the classroom, they are empowered to use similar principles in other aspects of their lives. This commentary reviews the concepts related to scientific integrity at a time when science faces important challenges related to the increase number of articles produced regarding research on coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) has ignited another parallel viral pandemic, with science ranging from robust studies to dishonest studies being conducted, posted, and shared at an unprecedented rate. A balance is needed between the benefits of the rapid access to new scientific data and the threat of causing panic or erroneous clinical decisions based on mistakes or misconduct. The truth is that the "scientific research has changed the world" but now, and more than ever, "it needs to change itself". A pandemic with a "paperdemic" will be even more complicated to manage if it progresses in an uncontrolled manner and is not properly scrutinized.
COVID's preprint bump set to have lasting effect on research publishing

Dalmeet Singh Chawla

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-024-00401-4

IF: 64.8

2024-02-10

Nature

Abstract:Many researchers published their first preprint in the pandemic — and they liked it. Their experience could prompt further integration of the practice. Many researchers published their first preprint in the pandemic — and they liked it. Their experience could prompt further integration of the practice.

multidisciplinary sciences
Is preprint the future of science? A thirty year journey of online preprint services

Boya Xie,Zhihong Shen,Kuansan Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2102.09066

2021-02-17

Digital Libraries

Abstract:Preprint is a version of a scientific paper that is publicly distributed preceding formal peer review. Since the launch of arXiv in 1991, preprints have been increasingly distributed over the Internet as opposed to paper copies. It allows open online access to disseminate the original research within a few days, often at a very low operating cost. This work overviews how preprint has been evolving and impacting the research community over the past thirty years alongside the growth of the Web. In this work, we first report that the number of preprints has exponentially increased 63 times in 30 years, although it only accounts for 4% of research articles. Second, we quantify the benefits that preprints bring to authors: preprints reach an audience 14 months earlier on average and associate with five times more citations compared with a non-preprint counterpart. Last, to address the quality concern of preprints, we discover that 41% of preprints are ultimately published at a peer-reviewed destination, and the published venues are as influential as papers without a preprint version. Additionally, we discuss the unprecedented role of preprints in communicating the latest research data during recent public health emergencies. In conclusion, we provide quantitative evidence to unveil the positive impact of preprints on individual researchers and the community. Preprints make scholarly communication more efficient by disseminating scientific discoveries more rapidly and widely with the aid of Web technologies. The measurements we present in this study can help researchers and policymakers make informed decisions about how to effectively use and responsibly embrace a preprint culture.
Surprising Resilience of Science During a Global Pandemic: A Large-Scale Descriptive Analysis

Kian Ahrabian,Casandra Rusti,Ziao Wang,Jay Pujara,Kristina Lerman

2024-09-12

Abstract:The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly impacted people globally, yet its effect on scientists and research institutions has yet to be fully examined. To address this knowledge gap, we use a newly available bibliographic dataset covering tens of millions of papers and authors to investigate changes in research activity and collaboration during this period. Employing statistical methods, we analyze the pandemic's disruptions on the participation, productivity, and collaborations of researchers at the top 1,000 institutions worldwide based on historical productivity, taking into account variables such as geography, researcher seniority and gender, and field of study. Our findings reveal an unexpected trend: research activity and output significantly increased in the early stages of the pandemic, indicating a surprising resilience in the scientific community. However, by the end of 2022, there was a notable reversion to historical trends in research participation and productivity. This reversion suggests that the initial spike in research activity was a short-lived disruption rather than a permanent shift. As such, monitoring scientific outputs in 2023 and beyond becomes crucial. There may be a delayed negative effect of the pandemic on research, given the long time horizon for many research fields and the temporary closure of wet labs. Further analysis is needed to fully comprehend the factors that underpin the resilience of scientific innovation in the face of global crises. Our study provides an initial comprehensive exploration up to the end of 2022, offering valuable insights into how the scientific community has adapted and responded over the course of the pandemic.

Social and Information Networks,Digital Libraries
Open science and conflict of interest policies of medical and health sciences journals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A repeat cross-sectional study

Antoni D. Gardener,Ellen J. Hick,Chloe Jacklin,Gifford Tan,Aidan G. Cashin,Hopin Lee,David Nunan,Elaine C. Toomey,Georgia C. Richards

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/20542704221132139

2022-11-01

JRSM Open

Abstract:Objectives To audit the transparent and open science standards of health and medical sciences journal policies and explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic. Design Repeat cross-sectional study. Setting 19 journals listed in Google Scholar's Top Publications for health and medical sciences. Participants Blood, Cell, Circulation, European Heart Journal, Gastroenterology, Journal of Clinical Oncology, Journal of the American College of Cardiology, Nature Genetics, Nature Medicine, Nature Neuroscience, Neuron, PLoS ONE, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, Science Translational Medicine, The British Medical Journal, The Journal of the American Medical Association, The Lancet, The Lancet Oncology, and The New England Journal of Medicine. Main outcome measures We used the Transparency and Openness Promotion (TOP) guideline and the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) requirements for disclosing conflicts of interest (COIs) to evaluate journals standards. Results TOP scores slightly improved during the COVID-19 pandemic, from a median of 5 (IQR: 2–12.5) out of a possible 24 points in February 2020 to 7 (IQR: 4–12) in May 2021, but overall, scores were very low at both time points. Journal policies scored highest for their adherence to data transparency and scored lowest for preregistration of study protocols and analysis plans and the submission of replication studies. Most journals fulfilled all ICMJE provisions for reporting COIs before (84%; n = 16) and during (95%; n = 18) the COVID-19 pandemic. Conclusions The COVID-19 pandemic has highlighted the importance of practising open science. However, requirements for open science practices in audited policies were overall low, which may impede progress in health and medical research. As key stakeholders in disseminating research, journals should promote a research culture of greater transparency and more robust open science practices.
The rapid, massive growth of COVID-19 authors in the scientific literature

John P. A. Ioannidis,Maia Salholz-Hillel,Kevin W. Boyack,Jeroen Baas

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.210389

IF: 3.5

2021-09-01

Royal Society Open Science

Abstract:We examined the extent to which the scientific workforce in different fields was engaged in publishing COVID-19-related papers. According to Scopus (data cut, 1 August 2021), 210 183 COVID-19-related publications included 720 801 unique authors, of which 360 005 authors had published at least five full papers in their career and 23 520 authors were at the top 2% of their scientific subfield based on a career-long composite citation indicator. The growth of COVID-19 authors was far more rapid and massive compared with cohorts of authors historically publishing on H1N1, Zika, Ebola, HIV/AIDS and tuberculosis. All 174 scientific subfields had some specialists who had published on COVID-19. In 109 of the 174 subfields of science, at least one in 10 active, influential (top 2% composite citation indicator) authors in the subfield had authored something on COVID-19. Fifty-three hyper-prolific authors had already at least 60 (and up to 227) COVID-19 publications each. Among the 300 authors with the highest composite citation indicator for their COVID-19 publications, most common countries were USA ( n = 67), China ( n = 52), UK ( n = 32) and Italy ( n = 18). The rapid and massive involvement of the scientific workforce in COVID-19-related work is unprecedented and creates opportunities and challenges. There is evidence for hyper-prolific productivity.

multidisciplinary sciences
Characteristics of academic publications, preprints, and registered clinical trials on the COVID-19 pandemic

Silvia Gianola,Tiago S. Jesus,Silvia Bargeri,Greta Castellini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0240123

IF: 3.7

2020-10-06

PLoS ONE

Abstract:The COVID-19 pandemic has unleashed a deluge of publications. For this cross-sectional study we compared the amount and reporting characteristics of COVID-19-related academic articles and preprints and the number of ongoing clinical trials and systematic reviews. To do this, we searched the PubMed database of citations and abstracts for published life science journals by using appropriate combinations of medical subject headings (MeSH terms), and the COVID-19 section of the MedRxiv and BioRxiv archives up to 20 May 2020 (21 weeks). In addition, we searched Clinicaltrial.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, EU Clinical Trials Register, and 15 other trial registers, as well as PROSPERO, the international prospective register of systematic reviews. The characteristics of each publication were extracted. Regression analyses and Z tests were used to detect publication trends and their relative proportions. A total of 3635 academic publications and 3805 preprints were retrieved. Only 8.6% (n = 329) of the preprints were already published in indexed journals. The number of academic and preprint publications increased significantly over time (p<0.001). Case reports (6% academic vs 0.9% preprints; p<0.001) and letters (17.4% academic vs 0.5% preprints; p<0.001) accounted for a greater share of academic compared to preprint publications. Differently, randomized controlled trials (0.22% vs 0.63%; p<0.001) and systematic reviews (0.08% vs 5%) made up a greater share of the preprints. The relative proportion of clinical studies registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, Chinese Clinical Trial Registry, and EU Clinical Trials Register was 57.9%, 49.5%, and 98.9%, respectively, most of which were still "recruiting". PROSPERO listed 962 systematic review protocols. Preprints were slightly more prevalent than academic articles but both were increasing in number. The void left by the lack of primary studies was filled by an outpour of immediate opinions (i.e., letters to the editor) published in PubMed-indexed journals. Summarizing, preprints have gained traction as a publishing response to the demand for prompt access to empirical, albeit not peer-reviewed, findings during the present pandemic.

multidisciplinary sciences
Mitigating the detrimental effects of COVID-19 pandemic on scientific production

Hilton Y. Lam

DOI: https://doi.org/10.47895/amp.v56i12.6253

2022-07-15

Acta Medica Philippina

Abstract:A review of SCOPUS indexed journal publications showed that the number of scientific articles attributed to Filipino authors in 2010 numbered 1,381, and had been climbing at a rate of 17.8% annually until 2019, when the total number of publications for the Philippines numbered 5,808. However, this growth rate slowed to 5.5% by 2020 and 2021.1 While not entirely alarming, we should still take note that this can indicate a slowing down of the growth of scientific productivity, possibly brought about by the COVID-19 pandemic. There are rumbles in the scientific world that we should not ignore. A meta-analysis of 22,525 publications in 10 high-impact scientific journals, between January 01, 2019 and January 01, 2021 by Raynaud et al. noted that journals in fact increased their overall publication production by maintaining their volume of nonCOVID-19 publications while integrating COVID-19 related researchers, and decreasing their nonCOVID-19 publications while integrating COVID-19 publications; that COVID-19 publication had a median of 9.0 authors as compared to 4.0 authors in nonCOVID-19 publications. In terms of original articles, as opposed to research letters and case reports, COVID-19 publications were significantly lower at 47.9% compared to nonCOVID-19 publications which were at 71.3%.2 This quick rise of the number of COVID-19 related articles from zero in 2018 to approximately 200,000 by December 2020, can be attributed to the speedy review that such manuscripts enjoyed in contrast to nonCOVID-19 related manuscripts (90 days vs 30 days).3 This observation is echoed by Riccaboni and Verginer wherein their difference-in-differences analysis of 3,638,584 papers published in life sciences journals from January 2019 to December 2020 showed a 650% increase in COVID-19 related publications compared to a 10 to 12% decrease in nonCOVID-19 related publications.4 According to Gao et al., in two randomly sampled surveys conducted between April 2020 and January 2021 among 6,982 US and European principal investigators, and triangulated with analysis of the Dimensions database, 9% of the respondents reporting have no new research projects in 2019, but this increased to 27% for 2020. Their Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator (LASSO) regression showed that the factors most predictive of this “no new research” situation are research area being not COVID-19 related, being female, and having children who are 5 years old or younger. They further note that because it takes an average of three years minimum from research conceptualization to publication, this pernicious effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientific productivity may not be immediately felt yet.5 This is echoed in Germany wherein 67% of the 120 researchers surveyed reported not being able to out their projects due to COVID-19 exacerbation of their child or elderly care commitments.6 Liu et al. in their difference in differences analysis of the 122,310 documents in the COVID-19 Open Research Dataset between January 2018 and September 2020, showed that female authorships dropped by 5%, that publication by teams with a female as a first author dropped by 21% (with no change in publications with females as last author), that publications by mix-gender teams declined by 6.8% while all male teams included by 5% and all female teams increased by 1.8%.7 This is quite alarming given that there is empirical evidence showing that the research quality measured by journal prestige level of mixed-sex publications, is higher than that of same-sex publications for both male and female scientists.8 The rise of preprints, where unreviewed manuscripts are deposited in online-accessible databases for public scrutiny, is seen as a double-edged sword. As part of the open science movement, preprints allow communication of new findings in a timelier manner9 , and can lead to avoidance of duplications of researches.10 However, Besançon et al. reported that between January 1 to June 30, 2020, using the altmetric API, a total of 1,462 preprints were shared in twitter, facebook, blogs, news, and others as valid scientific evidence, raising concerns of spreading potentially misleading and unverified data. Accordingly, the number of COVID-19 preprint mentions in the media ranged from 2 to 36 times.11 Scientists and their researchers, like most people, were not immune to the COVID-19 pandemic. Luckily, many of our COVID-19 induced problems may not manifest until three to five years later. Thus, there is still time for us to act: educate the media and social media content producers on the limits of preprints as scientific evidence; help women scientists and scientists with children 5 years or younger or elderly that they care for overcome the challenges they face, reward more mix-gender research teams and more original research work, and more importantly, for more effective interventions, to analyze local data to more accurately assess the extent of the issue, and the key bottlenecks. Hilton Y. Lam, MHA, PhD Research Professor 9 and Director Institute of Health Policy and Development Studies National Institutes of Health University of the Philippines Manila REFERENCES SCImago Lab. Scimago Journal and Country Rank [Internet]. [cited 2022 Jun 22] Available from: https://www.scimagojr.com/countryrank.php. RaynaudM, Goutaudier V, Louis K, Al-Awadhi A, Dubourg Q, Truchot A, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on publication dynamics and non-COVID-19 research production. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(255):1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01404-9 Else H. How a torrent of COVID science changed research publishing - in seven charts. Nature. 2020;588(7839):553. doi: 10.1038/d41586- 020-03564-y. PMID: 33328621. Riccaboni M, Verginer L. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on scientific research in the life sciences. PLoS ONE. 2022; 17(2): e0263001. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.02630019. GaoJ, Yin Y, Myers KR, Lakhani KR, Wang D. Potentially long-lasting effects of the pandemic on scientists. Nat Commun.2021; 12(6188): 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-021-26428-z Bratan T, Aichinger H, Brkic N, Rueter J, Apfelbacher C, Boyer C, et al. Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on ongoing health research: an ad hoc survey among investigators in Germany. BMJ Open. 2021;11:e049086:1-7. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-049086 Liu MJ, Zhang N, Hu X, Jasiwal A, Xu J, Chen H, et al. Further divided gender gaps in research productivity and collaboration during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from coronavirus-related literature. J of Informetrics. 2022;16(101295):1-17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2022.101295 Kwiek M, Roszka W. Gender-based homophily in research: A large-scale study of man-woman collaboration. Journal of Informetrics. 2021;15 (3):1-26. Article 101171. doi.org/10.1016/j.joi.2021.101171. Sarabipour S, Debat HJ, Emmott E, Burgess SJ, Schwessinger B, Hensel Z. On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective. PLoS Biol. 2019; 17(2):1–12. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151. Fry NK, Marshall H, Mellins-Cohen T. In praise of preprints. Microb Genomics. 2019; 5(4):1-3. https://doi.org/10.1099/mgen.0.000259. Besançon L, Peiffer-Smadja N, Segalas C, Jiang H, Masuzzo P, Smout C, et al. Open science saves lives: lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021; 21(117): 1-18. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-021-01304-y
Information and Misinformation on COVID-19: a Cross-Sectional Survey Study

Latika Gupta,Armen Yuri Gasparyan,Durga Prasanna Misra,Vikas Agarwal,Olena Zimba,Marlen Yessirkepov

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3346/jkms.2020.35.e256

2020-07-13

Abstract:Background: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has led to a large volume of publications, a barrage of non-reviewed preprints on various professional repositories and a slew of retractions in a short amount of time. Methods: We conducted an e-survey using a cloud-based website to gauge the potential sources of trustworthy information and misinformation and analyzed researchers', clinicians', and academics' attitude toward unpublished items, and pre- and post-publication quality checks in this challenging time. Results: Among 128 respondents (mean age, 43.2 years; M:F, 1.1:1), 60 (46.9%) were scholarly journal editors and editorial board members. Social media channels were distinguished as the most important sources of information as well as misinformation (81 [63.3%] and 86 [67.2%]). Nearly two in five (62, 48.4%) respondents blamed reviewers, editors, and misinterpretation by readers as additional contributors alongside authors for misinformation. A higher risk of plagiarism was perceived by the majority (70, 58.6%), especially plagiarism of ideas (64.1%) followed by inappropriate paraphrasing (54.7%). Opinion was divided on the utility of preprints for changing practice and changing retraction rates during the pandemic period, and higher rejections were not supported by most (76.6%) while the importance of peer review was agreed upon by a majority (80, 62.5%). More stringent screening by journal editors (61.7%), and facilitating open access plagiarism software (59.4%), including Artificial Intelligence (AI)-based algorithms (43.8%) were among the suggested solutions. Most (74.2%) supported the need to launch a specialist bibliographic database for COVID-19, with information indexed (62.3%), available as open-access (82.8%), after expanding search terms (52.3%) and following due verification by academics (66.4%), and journal editors (52.3%). Conclusion: While identifying social media as a potential source of misinformation on COVID-19, and a perceived high risk of plagiarism, more stringent peer review and skilled post-publication promotion are advisable. Journal editors should play a more active role in streamlining publication and promotion of trustworthy information on COVID-19.
The experiences of COVID-19 preprint authors: a survey of researchers about publishing and receiving feedback on their work during the pandemic

Narmin Rzayeva,Susana Oliveira Henriques,Stephen Pinfield,Ludo Waltman

DOI: https://doi.org/10.7717/peerj.15864

2023-08-23

PeerJ - Life & Environment

Abstract:The COVID-19 pandemic caused a rise in preprinting, triggered by the need for open and rapid dissemination of research outputs. We surveyed authors of COVID-19 preprints to learn about their experiences with preprinting their work and also with publishing their work in a peer-reviewed journal. Our research had the following objectives: 1. to learn about authors' experiences with preprinting, their motivations, and future intentions; 2. to consider preprints in terms of their effectiveness in enabling authors to receive feedback on their work; 3. to compare the impact of feedback on preprints with the impact of comments of editors and reviewers on papers submitted to journals. In our survey, 78% of the new adopters of preprinting reported the intention to also preprint their future work. The boost in preprinting may therefore have a structural effect that will last after the pandemic, although future developments will also depend on other factors, including the broader growth in the adoption of open science practices. A total of 53% of the respondents reported that they had received feedback on their preprints. However, more than half of the feedback was received through "closed" channels–privately to the authors. This means that preprinting was a useful way to receive feedback on research, but the value of feedback could be increased further by facilitating and promoting "open" channels for preprint feedback. Almost a quarter of the feedback received by respondents consisted of detailed comments, showing the potential of preprint feedback to provide valuable comments on research. Respondents also reported that, compared to preprint feedback, journal peer review was more likely to lead to major changes to their work, suggesting that journal peer review provides significant added value compared to feedback received on preprints.
The reproducibility of COVID-19 data analysis: paradoxes, pitfalls, and future challenges

Clelia Di Serio,Antonio Malgaroli,Paolo Ferrari,Ron S Kenett

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/pnasnexus/pgac125

2022-08-23

PNAS Nexus

Abstract:In the midst of the COVID-19 experience, we learned an important scientific lesson: knowledge acquisition and information quality in medicine depends more on "data quality" rather than "data quantity." The large number of COVID-19 reports, published in a very short time, demonstrated that the most advanced statistical and computational tools cannot properly overcome the poor quality of acquired data. The main evidence for this observation comes from the poor reproducibility of results. Indeed, understanding the data generation process is fundamental when investigating scientific questions such as prevalence, immunity, transmissibility, and susceptibility. Most of COVID-19 studies are case reports based on "non probability" sampling and do not adhere to the general principles of controlled experimental designs. Such collected data suffers from many limitations when used to derive clinical conclusions. These include confounding factors, measurement errors and bias selection effects. Each of these elements represents a source of uncertainty, which is often ignored or assumed to provide an unbiased random contribution. Inference retrieved from large data in medicine is also affected by data protection policies that, while protecting patients' privacy, are likely to reduce consistently usefulness of big data in achieving fundamental goals such as effective and efficient data-integration. This limits the degree of generalizability of scientific studies and leads to paradoxical and conflicting conclusions. We provide such examples from assessing the role of risks factors. In conclusion, new paradigms and new designs schemes are needed in order to reach inferential conclusions that are meaningful and informative when dealing with data collected during emergencies like COVID-19.
Research and Data Mining During the COVID-19 Pandemic

Hale Z Toklu,Rakesh Prashad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.36518/2689-0216.1197

2020-10-29

Abstract:Description With the recent advances in information and technology systems, most developed countries have invested in building advanced systems for the management of electronic medical records. If the infrastructure of these systems are well designed, they both serve as an information resource for routine patient care and also serve as the primary backbone for medical research. This evidence became clear during the recent coronavirus pandemic, which has been a worldwide challenge since the beginning of 2020. Rapid spread of SARS-CoV-2 infections all over the world has resulted in tremendous health, economic and social ramifications, including social distancing, travel restrictions and closing of schools and businesses. Medical educational activities have shifted towards telemedicine, online learning and web-based meetings and conferences to prevent virus spread. While experimental lab research slowed, research with electronic medical records and databases accelerated in order to investigate the risk factors associated with COVID-19 and clinical management strategies to combat the disease. The urgency for COVID-related research has also lead to inconsistent and sometimes inaccurate output.

Rise of the preprint: how rapid data sharing during COVID-19 has changed science forever

The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape

Stark Decline in Journalists' Use of Preprints Post-pandemic

The Impact of Preprints on COVID-19 Research Dissemination: A Quantitative Analysis of Journal Publications

Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic

COVID-19-Related manuscripts: lag from preprint to publication

COVID-19 Pandemic and Research Publications; Necessity of Maintaining Scientific Integrity

Adjusting the use of preprints to accommodate the 'quality' factor in response to COVID-19

Reporting preprints in the media during the COVID-19 pandemic

COVID-19 research: pandemic versus "paperdemic", integrity, values and risks of the "speed science"

COVID's preprint bump set to have lasting effect on research publishing

Is preprint the future of science? A thirty year journey of online preprint services

Surprising Resilience of Science During a Global Pandemic: A Large-Scale Descriptive Analysis

Open science and conflict of interest policies of medical and health sciences journals before and during the COVID-19 pandemic: A repeat cross-sectional study

The rapid, massive growth of COVID-19 authors in the scientific literature

Characteristics of academic publications, preprints, and registered clinical trials on the COVID-19 pandemic

Mitigating the detrimental effects of COVID-19 pandemic on scientific production

Information and Misinformation on COVID-19: a Cross-Sectional Survey Study

The experiences of COVID-19 preprint authors: a survey of researchers about publishing and receiving feedback on their work during the pandemic

The reproducibility of COVID-19 data analysis: paradoxes, pitfalls, and future challenges

Research and Data Mining During the COVID-19 Pandemic