Anesth Pain Med.  2023 Apr;18(2):97-103. 10.17085/apm.23036.

Current concerns on journal article with preprint: Anesthesia and Pain Medicine perspectives

• Kang H
• Oh HC

• KMID: 2543650
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.17085/apm.23036

Abstract

Preprints are preliminary research reports that have not yet been peer-reviewed. They have been widely adopted to promote the timely dissemination of research across many scientific fields. In August 1991, Paul Ginsparg launched an electronic bulletin board intended to serve a few hundred colleagues working in a subfield of theoretical high-energy physics, thus launching arXiv, the first and largest preprint platform. Additional preprint servers have since been implemented in different academic fields, such as BioRxiv (2013, Biology; www.biorxiv.org) and medRxiv (2019, Health Science; www.medrxiv.org). While preprint availability has made valuable research resources accessible to the general public, thus bridging the gap between academic and non-academic audiences, it has also facilitated the spread of unsupported conclusions through various media channels. Issues surrounding the preprint policies of a journal must be addressed, ultimately, by editors and include the acceptance of preprint manuscripts, allowing the citation of preprints, maintaining a double-blind peer review process, changes to the preprint’s content and authors’ list, scoop priorities, commenting on preprints, and preventing the influence of social media. Editors must be able to deal with these issues adequately, to maintain the scientific integrity of their journal. In this review, the history, current status, and strengths and weaknesses of preprints as well as ongoing concerns regarding journal articles with preprints are discussed. An optimal approach to preprints is suggested for editorial board members, authors, and researchers.

Keyword

Preprint; medRxiv; Peer review; Research report

Figure

• 

  Fig. 1. Number of preprint submissions categorized by individual preprint platforms.

• 

  Fig. 2. Cumulative number of preprint submissions categorized by individual preprint platforms.

• 

  Fig. 3. Number of preprint downloads categorized by individual preprint platforms.

Reference

1. Callaway E. Preprints come to life. Nature. 2013; 503:180.

2. Ginsparg P. ArXiv at 20. Nature. 2011; 476:145–7.

3. MedRxiv. About medRxiv. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Mar 1]. Available from https://www.medrxiv.org/content/about-medrxiv.

4. Massey DS, Opare MA, Wallach JD, Ross JS, Krumholz HM. Assessment of preprint policies of top-ranked clinical journals. JAMA Netw Open. 2020; 3:e2011127.

5. Fraser N, Brierley L, Dey G, Polka JK, Pálfy M, Nanni F, et al. The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape. PLoS Biol. 2021; 19:e3000959.

6. Brierley L. Lessons from the influx of preprints during the early COVID-19 pandemic. Lancet Planet Health. 2021; 5:e115–7.

7. Watson C. Rise of the preprint: how rapid data sharing during COVID-19 has changed science forever. Nat Med. 2022; 28:2–5.

8. Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB, Bauchner H. Preprints involving medical research-do the benefits outweigh the challenges? JAMA. 2020; 324:1840–3.

9. Cobb M. The prehistory of biology preprints: a forgotten experiment from the 1960s. PLoS Biol. 2017; 15:e2003995.

10. Confrey EA. The information exchange groups experiment. Publ Res Q. 1996; 12:37–9.

11. Eysenbach G. Celebrating 20 years of open access and innovation at JMIR publications. J Med Internet Res. 2019; 21:e17578.

12. Yozwiak NL, Schaffner SF, Sabeti PC. Data sharing: make outbreak research open access. Nature. 2015; 518:477–9.

13. Fox F. The preprint dilemma: good for science, bad for the public? A discussion paper for the scientific community. Science Media Centre [Internet]. 2018 Jul 17 [cited 2023 Mar 1]. Available from https://www.sciencemediacentre.org/the-preprint-dilemma-good-for-science-bad-for-the-public-a-discussion-paper-for-the-scientific-community/.

14. Janda G, Khetpal V, Shi X, Ross JS, Wallach JD. Comparison of clinical study results reported in medRxiv preprints vs peer-reviewed journal articles. JAMA Netw Open. 2022; 5:e2245847.

15. Nelson L, Ye H, Schwenn A, Lee S, Arabi S, Hutchins BI. Robustness of evidence reported in preprints during peer review. Lancet Glob Health. 2022; 10:e1684–7.

16. JHL Editorial Team. Policy about preprints and other non-peer reviewed research. J Hum Lact. 2021; 37:17–8.

17. Lin YH, Sahker E, Shinohara K, Horinouchi N, Ito M, Lelliott M, et al. Assessment of blinding in randomized controlled trials of antidepressants for depressive disorders 2000-2020: a systematic review and meta-analysis. EClinicalMedicine. 2022; 50:101505.

18. Journal citation reports. International Journal of Antimicrobial Agents. Clarivate [Internet]. 2023 [cited 2023 Mar 1]. Available from https://clarivate.com/products/scientific-and-academic-research/research-analytics-evaluation-and-management-solutions/journal-citation-reports/.