ArticleF1000Research2016
Should there be greater use of preprint servers for publishing reports of biomedical science?
Article in F1000Research, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Article
- Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting.BMJ open · 2020Review
- Reducing bias and improving transparency in medical research: a critical overview of the problems, progress and suggested next steps.Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine · 2020Review
- Who and why do researchers opt to publish in post-publication peer review platforms? - findings from a review and survey of F1000 Research.F1000Research · 2018Article
- Long-term outcomes following lower extremity press-fit bone-anchored prosthesis surgery: a 5-year longitudinal study protocol.BMC musculoskeletal disorders · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Vitek Tracz and Rebecca Lawrence declare the current journal publishing system to be broken beyond repair. They propose that it should be replaced by immediate publication followed by transparent peer review as the starting place for more open and efficient reporting of science. While supporting this general objective, we suggest that research is needed both to understand why biomedical scientists have been slow to take up preprint options, as well as to assess the relative merits of this and other alternatives to journal publishing.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.