ReviewBMJ open2020
Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting.
Review in BMJ open, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 35 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
35 citing papers in PubMed, 105 citations in OpenAlex.
- Open Science Practices in Systematic Reviews From 2014 to 2024: A Cohort Study of 300 Systematic Reviews.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
- Preprint policies across journals and publishers in ecology and evolutionary biology.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2025Article
- SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2025Article
- The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- Construction of medical scientific data repositories in China: analysis of survey and recommendations.Frontiers in artificial intelligence · 2025Article
- Preprint pointers from a long COVID scoping review: considerations for source selection and searching.The journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association · 2024Article
- Confidence score: a data-driven measure for inclusive systematic reviews considering unpublished preprints.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2024Article
- Perceived experts are prevalent and influential within an antivaccine community on Twitter.PNAS nexus · 2024Article
- Comparison of effect estimates between preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles of COVID-19 trials.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Article
- Open Science Practices in Psychiatric Genetics: A Primer.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2024Review
- The role and influence of perceived experts in an anti-vaccine misinformation community.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2023Article
- Designing, conducting, and reporting reproducible animal experiments.The Journal of endocrinology · 2023Review
- The rise of preprints in earth sciences.F1000Research · 2023Article
- Using an expert survey and user feedback to construct PRECHECK: A checklist to evaluate preprints on COVID-19 and beyond.F1000Research · 2023Article
- Data Collection Theory in Healthcare Research: The Minimum Dataset in Quantitative Studies.Clinics and practice · 2022Article
- Ensuring an Accurate Scientific Record in an Era of Pre-print Servers.Deutsches Arzteblatt international · 2022Review
- COVID-19 during pregnancy and risk of pregnancy loss (miscarriage or stillbirth): a systematic review protocol.BMJ open · 2022Article
- Transparency and reporting characteristics of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials.BMC medicine · 2022Article
- Forecasting the publication and citation outcomes of COVID-19 preprints.Royal Society open science · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.
Funding
Abstract
objectivesThe objective of this review is to identify all preprint platforms with biomedical and medical scope and to compare and contrast the key characteristics and policies of these platforms. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingPreprint platforms that were launched up to 25 June 2019 and have a biomedical and medical scope according to MEDLINE's journal selection criteria were identified using existing lists, web-based searches and the expertise of both academic and non-academic publication scientists. A data extraction form was developed, pilot tested and used to collect data from each preprint platform's webpage(s).
resultsA total of 44 preprint platforms were identified as having biomedical and medical scope, 17 (39%) were hosted by the Open Science Framework preprint infrastructure, 6 (14%) were provided by F1000 Research (the Open Research Central infrastructure) and 21 (48%) were other independent preprint platforms. Preprint platforms were either owned by non-profit academic groups, scientific societies or funding organisations (n=28; 64%), owned/partly owned by for-profit publishers or companies (n=14; 32%) or owned by individuals/small communities (n=2; 5%). Twenty-four (55%) preprint platforms accepted content from all scientific fields although some of these had restrictions relating to funding source, geographical region or an affiliated journal's remit. Thirty-three (75%) preprint platforms provided details about article screening (basic checks) and 14 (32%) of these actively involved researchers with context expertise in the screening process. Almost all preprint platforms allow submission to any peer-reviewed journal following publication, have a preservation plan for read access and most have a policy regarding reasons for retraction and the sustainability of the service.
conclusionA large number of preprint platforms exist for use in biomedical and medical sciences, all of which offer researchers an opportunity to rapidly disseminate their research findings onto an open-access public server, subject to scope and eligibility.
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.