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.
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BackgroundPreprints are scientific manuscripts that are made available on open-access servers but are not yet peer reviewed.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 6 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Publishing at any cost: a cross-sectional study of the amount that medical researchers spend on open-access publishing each year 96%
- A systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting 96%
- Comparison of preprints and final journal publications from COVID-19 Studies: Discrepancies in results reporting and spin in interpretation 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Open Science Practices Among Authors Published in Complementary, Alternative, and Integrative Medicine Journals: An International, Cross-Sectional Survey 97%
- The PBL teaching method in Neurology Education in the Traditional Chinese Medicine undergraduate students: An Observational Study 88%
- The Impact of Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) on Liver Injury in China: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis 87%
Similar papers in this journal
- Researcher and Clinician Preferences for a Journal Transparency Tool: A Mixed-Methods Survey and Focus Group Study 95%
- Full Publication of Preprint Articles in Prevention Research: An Analysis of Publication Proportions and Results Consistency 93%
- Privacy Protection of Sexually Transmitted Infections Information from Chinese Electronic Medical Records 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Does retraction after misconduct have an impact on citations? A pre-post study. 94%
- Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries 92%
- Public engagement and crowdfunding for health research: A global qualitative evidence synthesis and TDR pilot 91%
"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.