Back

An International, Cross-Sectional Survey of Preprinting Attitudes Among Biomedical Researchers

Ng, J. Y.; Chow, V.; Santoro, L. J.; Armond, A. C. V.; Pirshahid, S. E.; Cobey, K. D.; Moher, D.

2023-09-18 health systems and quality improvement
10.1101/2023.09.17.23295682 medRxiv
Show abstract

BackgroundPreprints are scientific manuscripts that are made available on open-access servers but are not yet peer reviewed. While preprints are becoming more prevalent uptake is not uniform or optimal. Understanding researchers opinions and attitudes towards preprints is valuable to their successful implementation. Understanding knowledge gaps and researchers attitudes toward preprinting can assist stakeholders like journals, funding agencies, and universities to implement preprints more effectively. Here, we aim to collect perceptions and behaviours regarding preprints in across an international sample of biomedical researchers. MethodsBiomedical authors were identified by a keyword-based, systematic search from the MEDLINE database, and their emails were extracted to invite them to our survey. A cross-sectional anonymous survey was distributed to all identified biomedical authors to collect their knowledge, attitudes, and opinions about preprinting. ResultsThe survey was completed by 730 biomedical researchers with a response rate of 3.20% and demonstrated a wide range of attitudes and opinions about preprints with authors from various disciplines and career stages around the world. Most respondents were familiar with the concept of preprints, but most had not published a preprint before. The lead author of the project and journal policy had the most impact on decisions to post a preprint, while employers/research institute had the least impact. Supporting open science practices was the highest ranked incentive, while increases to authors visibility was highest ranked motivation for publishing preprints. ConclusionWhile many biomedical researchers recognize the benefits of preprints, there is still hesitation among others to engage in this practice. This may be due to the general lack of peer review of preprints and little enthusiasm from external organizations, such as journals, funding agencies, and universities. Future work is needed to determine optimal ways to increase researchers attitudes through modifications to current preprint systems and policies.

Matching journals

The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

1
PLOS ONE
4510 papers in training set
Top 3%
29.8%
2
F1000Research
79 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
13.7%
3
Royal Society Open Science
193 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
6.8%
50% of probability mass above
4
Medicine
30 papers in training set
Top 0.4%
4.3%
5
BMJ Open
554 papers in training set
Top 6%
3.1%
6
Journal of Clinical and Translational Science
11 papers in training set
Top 0.1%
2.9%
7
Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine
27 papers in training set
Top 0.3%
1.8%
8
Healthcare
16 papers in training set
Top 0.5%
1.8%
9
Journal of Medical Internet Research
85 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
10
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
124 papers in training set
Top 3%
1.8%
11
JAMA Network Open
127 papers in training set
Top 2%
1.8%
12
Scientific Reports
3102 papers in training set
Top 61%
1.6%
13
JMIRx Med
31 papers in training set
Top 0.9%
1.4%
14
Journal of Public Health
23 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
1.0%
15
BMJ Open Quality
15 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
1.0%
16
Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness
16 papers in training set
Top 1%
1.0%
17
FEBS Letters
42 papers in training set
Top 0.2%
0.8%
18
Heliyon
146 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.8%
19
BMJ Global Health
98 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
20
PLOS Digital Health
91 papers in training set
Top 2%
0.8%
21
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases
18 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.8%
22
Health Expectations
12 papers in training set
Top 0.7%
0.7%
23
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
28 papers in training set
Top 0.6%
0.7%
24
BMC Biology
248 papers in training set
Top 5%
0.7%
25
BMC Medical Informatics and Decision Making
39 papers in training set
Top 3%
0.5%
26
BMJ Health & Care Informatics
13 papers in training set
Top 1%
0.5%
27
Journal of the American Heart Association
119 papers in training set
Top 4%
0.5%