ReviewMedical journal, Armed Forces India2018
The preprint debate: What are the issues?
Review in Medical journal, Armed Forces India, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed.
- Can I trust this paper?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- The Utilization of Preprint Servers in Plastic Surgery.Aesthetic plastic surgery · 2025Article
- Editorial viewpoints of scientific publishing for early-career research scientists.BMC proceedings · 2024Review
- PreprintMatch: A tool for preprint to publication detection shows global inequities in scientific publication.PloS one · 2023Article
- The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review.PloS one · 2023Article
- Papers perpetually in press: intellect left to rot.Irish journal of medical science · 2022Article
- Deceiving scientific research, misconduct events are possibly a more common practice than foreseen.Environmental sciences Europe · 2022Article
- A Synthesis of the Formats for Correcting Erroneous and Fraudulent Academic Literature, and Associated Challenges.Journal for general philosophy of science = Zeitschrift fur allgemeine Wissenschaftstheorie · 2022Article
- Adjusting the use of preprints to accommodate the 'quality' factor in response to COVID-19.Journal of Taibah University Medical Sciences · 2021Article
- In praise of preprints.Microbial genomics · 2019Article
- In praise of preprints.Access microbiology · 2019Article
- Determination of Thermal DNA-Stability With Respect to PCR or How to Debunk a Pseudoscientific Claim.Biochemistry and molecular biology education : a bimonthly publication of the International Union of Biochemistry and Molecular BiologyArticle
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The debate surrounding preprints is increasing. Preprint proponents claim that preprints are a way to shore up trust in academic publishing, that they provide an additional 'quality' screen prior to traditional peer review, that they can assist with the replication crisis plaguing science in part by making negative or contradictory results public, and that they speed up the publishing process because fundamental results can be presented early, serving as timely reports for the purposes of tenure or grant funding. Preprint skeptics and critics claim that preprints may represent a risk and a danger to quality-based academic publishing because they are documents that have not been carefully and thoroughly vetted prior to their release into the public domain. Thus, academics who cite invalid, poorly vetted, or false facts could cause harm, not unlike the unscholarly 'predatory' open access movement. Feedback on work from lesser-known groups, or on less glamorous topics, may be null or worse than from traditional peer review, annulling an initial key objective of preprints. Although there is no widespread empirical evidence or data yet regarding some of these issues, academics should be aware of the ideological, financial, and political tug-of-war taking place before deciding if they wish to publish their important findings as a preprint prior or simultaneous to submitting to a regular journal for peer review.
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.