Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33376175›Full record

ReviewBMJ open2020

Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting.

Jamie J Kirkham, Naomi C Penfold, Fiona Murphy, Isabelle Boutron, John P Ioannidis, Jessica Polka, David Moher

Open access · goldAbstract readReview
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
35citing papers in PubMed
33.9field-weighted citation impact, top 1% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

35 citing papers in PubMed, 105 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Open Science Practices in Psychiatric Genetics: A Primer.Biological psychiatry global open science · 2024
    Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 6 institutions in 4 countries.

Jamie J KirkhamCentre for Biostatistics, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK jamie.kirkham@manchester.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-2579-9325
Naomi C PenfoldASAPbio, San Francisco, California, USA.ORCID 0000-0003-0568-1194
Fiona MurphyMurphy Mitchell Consulting Ltd, Chichester, UK.
Isabelle BoutronUniversité de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Inserm, Paris, France.
John P IoannidisMeta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) and Departments of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, California, USA.
Jessica PolkaASAPbio, San Francisco, California, USA.
David MoherCentre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2434-4206
AskBio (United States) · USInserm · FRManchester Academic Health Science Centre · GBOttawa Hospital · CAUniversité Bourgogne Franche-Comté · FRUniversity of Chichester · GB

Funding

CIHRHoward Hughes Medical InstituteMedical Research CouncilWellcome Trust
6 · The paper itself

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

Biomedical ResearchPeer ReviewHumansResearch PersonnelSocieties, Scientificmedical ethicsmedical journalismstatistics & research methods

Identifiers

PMID33376175
PMCPMC7778769
OpenAlexW3113511995

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.