Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39600342›Full record

ArticleF1000Research2024

An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers.

Jeremy Y Ng, Valerie Chow, Lucas J Santoro, Anna Catharina Vieira Armond, Sanam Ebrahimzadeh Pirshahid, Kelly D Cobey, David Moher

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in F1000Research, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
3citing papers in PubMed
–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

3 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. 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.

Jeremy Y NgCentre for Journalology, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-0031-5873
Valerie ChowDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L8, Canada.
Lucas J SantoroDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L8, Canada.
Anna Catharina Vieira ArmondCentre for Journalology, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada.
Sanam Ebrahimzadeh PirshahidCentre for Journalology, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada.
Kelly D CobeyMeta-Research and Open Science Program, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4W7, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2797-1686
David MoherCentre for Journalology, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada.ORCID 0000-0003-2434-4206

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Preprints are scientific manuscripts that are made available on open-access servers but are not yet peer-reviewed. Although preprints are becoming more prevalent, uptake is not optimal. Understanding researchers' opinions and attitudes toward preprints is valuable to optimize their use. Understanding knowledge gaps and researchers' attitudes toward preprinting can assist stakeholders, such as journals, funding agencies, and universities, to use preprints more effectively. Here, we aimed to collect perceptions and behaviours regarding preprints across an international sample of biomedical researchers. Methods: Corresponding authors of articles published in biomedical research journals were identified from a random sample of journals from the MEDLINE database. Their names and email addresses were extracted to invite them to our anonymous, cross-sectional survey, which asked participants questions about their knowledge, attitudes, and opinions regarding preprinting. Results: The survey was completed by 730 respondents providing a response rate of 3.20% and demonstrated a wide range of attitudes and opinions about preprints with authors from various disciplines and career stages worldwide. Most respondents were familiar with the concept of preprints but most had not previously posted one. The lead author of the project and journal policy had the greatest impact on decisions to post a preprint, whereas employers/research institutes had the least impact. Supporting open science practices was the highest ranked incentive, while increasing authors' visibility was the highest ranked motivation for publishing preprints. Conclusions: Although many biomedical researchers recognize the benefits of preprints, there is still hesitation among others to engage in this practice. This may be due to the general lack of peer review of preprints and little enthusiasm from external organizations such as journals, funding agencies, and universities. Future work is needed to determine optimal ways to improve researchers' attitudes through modifications to current preprint systems and policies.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchResearch PersonnelAttitudeCross-Sectional StudiesFemaleHumansInternationalityMalePreprints as TopicSurveys and Questionnairesbiomedicineopen scienceopen science practicespreprintingpreprintsresearchers

Identifiers

PMID39600342
PMCPMC11589411

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.