Back

Reproducibility and reporting practices in COVID-19 preprint manuscripts

Sumner, J. Q.; Haynes, L.; Nathan, S.; Hudson-Vitale, C.; McIntosh, L. D.

2020-03-27 health informatics
10.1101/2020.03.24.20042796 medRxiv
Show abstract

The novel coronavirus, COVID-19, has sparked an outflow of scientific research seeking to understand the virus, its spread, and best practices in prevention and treatment. If this international research effort is going to be as swift and effective as possible, it will need to rely on a principle of open science. When researchers share data, code, and software and generally make their work as transparent as possible, it allows other researchers to verify and expand upon their work. Furthermore, it allows public officials to make informed decisions. In this study, we analyzed 535 preprint articles related to COVID-19 for eight transparency criteria and recorded study location and funding information. We found that individual researchers have lined up to help during this crisis, quickly tackling important public health questions, often without funding or support from outside organizations. However, most authors could improve their data sharing and scientific reporting practices. The contrast between researchers commitment to doing important research and their reporting practices reveals underlying weaknesses in the research communitys reporting habits, but not necessarily their science.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.