Describing the landscape of medical education preprints on medRxiv
Maggio, L. A.; Costello, J. A.; Artino, A. R.
10.1101/2023.10.19.23297205 medRxivShow abstract
IntroductionA preprint is a version of a research manuscript posted to a preprint server prior to peer review. Preprints enable authors to quickly and openly share research, afford opportunities for expedient feedback, and enable immediate listing of research on grant and promotion applications. In medical education, most journals welcome preprints, suggesting they play a role in the fields discourse. Yet, little is known about medical education preprints, including author characteristics, use, and ultimate publication status. This study provides an overview of preprints in medical education in an effort to better understand their role in the fields discourse. MethodsThe authors queried medRxiv, a preprint repository, to identify preprints categorized as Medical Education and downloaded the related metadata. CrossRef was queried to gather information on preprints later published in journals. ResultsBetween 2019-2022, 204 preprints were classified in medRxiv as Medical Education with most deposited in 2021 (n=76, 37.3%). On average, preprint full-texts were downloaded 1875.2 times, and all were promoted on social media. Preprints were authored, on average, by 5.9 authors. Corresponding authors were based in 41 countries with nearly half (45.6%) in the United States, United Kingdom, and Canada. Almost half (n=101, 49.5%) of preprints became published articles in predominantly peer-reviewed journals. Preprints appeared in 65 peer-reviewed journals with BMC Medical Education (n=9, 8.9%) most represented. DiscussionMedical education research is being deposited as preprints, which are promoted, heavily accessed, and subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals, including those specific to medical education. Considering the benefits of preprints and slowness of medical education publishing, it is likely that preprint deposition will increase and preprints will be integrated into the fields discourse. Based on these findings, we propose next steps to facilitate the responsible and effective creation and use of preprints in medical education.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Reliability of citations of medRxiv preprints in articles published on COVID-19 in the world leading medical journals 95%
- Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: an international cross-sectional survey 94%
- Introducing the EMPIRE Index: A novel, value-based metric framework to measure the impact of medical publications 94%
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 94%
- Open access policies of high impact medical journals: a cross-sectional study 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Semantic and geographical analysis of Covid-19 trials reveals a fragmented clinical research landscape likely to impair informativeness. 89%
- For-Profit Growth and Academic Decline: A Retrospective Nationwide Assessment of Brazilian Medical Schools 89%
- Development and Validation of an Interpretable 3-day Intensive Care Unit Readmission Prediction Model Using Explainable Boosting Machines 88%
"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.