Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33897069›Full record

ArticleScientometrics2021

Day-to-day discovery of preprint-publication links.

Guillaume Cabanac, Theodora Oikonomidi, Isabelle Boutron

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientometrics, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
14citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

14 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Efficacy and safety of COVID-19 vaccines.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  3. Interleukin-1 blocking agents for treating COVID-19.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Publication practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: Expedited publishing or simply an early bird effect?Learned publishing : journal of the Association of Learned and Professional Society Publishers · 2022
    Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Review
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

3 authors.

Guillaume CabanacComputer Science Department, IRIT UMR 5505 CNRS, University of Toulouse, 118 route de Narbonne, 31062 Toulouse cedex 9, France.ORCID 0000-0003-3060-6241
Theodora OikonomidiInserm, Université de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), 75004 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0003-2094-6015
Isabelle BoutronInserm, Université de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), 75004 Paris, France.ORCID 0000-0002-5263-6241

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Preprints promote the open and fast communication of non-peer reviewed work. Once a preprint is published in a peer-reviewed venue, the preprint server updates its web page: a prominent hyperlink leading to the newly published work is added. Linking preprints to publications is of utmost importance as it provides readers with the latest version of a now certified work. Yet leading preprint servers fail to identify all existing preprint-publication links. This limitation calls for a more thorough approach to this critical information retrieval task: overlooking published evidence translates into partial and even inaccurate systematic reviews on health-related issues, for instance. We designed an algorithm leveraging the Crossref public and free source of bibliographic metadata to comb the literature for preprint-publication links. We tested it on a reference preprint set identified and curated for a living systematic review on interventions for preventing and treating COVID-19 performed by international collaboration: the COVID-NMA initiative (covid-nma.com). The reference set comprised 343 preprints, 121 of which appeared as a publication in a peer-reviewed journal. While the preprint servers identified 39.7% of the preprint-publication links, our linker identified 90.9% of the expected links with no clues taken from the preprint servers. The accuracy of the proposed linker is 91.5% on this reference set, with 90.9% sensitivity and 91.9% specificity. This is a 16.26% increase in accuracy compared to that of preprint servers. We release this software as supplementary material to foster its integration into preprint servers' workflows and enhance a daily preprint-publication chase that is useful to all readers, including systematic reviewers. This preprint-publication linker currently provides day-to-day updates to the biomedical experts of the COVID-NMA initiative.

Indexed as

COVID-19Data linkingLiving systematic reviewPreprintPublication

Identifiers

PMID33897069
PMCPMC8053368

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.