Seymour, Paul, and Gloria Milstein Division of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Columbia University Irving Medical Center and New York-Presbyterian Hospital, New York, New York, USA.
Technion-Israel Institute of Technology, Haifa, Israel.
J Eval Clin Pract. 2021 Feb;27(1):16-21. doi: 10.1111/jep.13498. Epub 2020 Oct 23.
RATIONALE, AIMS, AND OBJECTIVES: To both examine the impact of preprint publishing on health sciences research and survey popular preprint servers amidst the current coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic.
The authors queried three biomedical databases (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar) and two preprint servers (MedRxiv and SSRN) to identify literature pertaining to preprints. Additionally, they evaluated 12 preprint servers featuring COVID-19 research through sample submission of six manuscripts.
The realm of health sciences research has seen a dramatic increase in the presence and importance of preprint publications. By posting manuscripts on preprint servers, researchers are able to immediately communicate their findings, thereby facilitating prompt feedback and promoting collaboration. In doing so, they may also reduce publication bias and improve methodological transparency. However, by circumventing the peer-review process, academia incurs the risk of disseminating erroneous or misinterpreted data and suffering the downstream consequences. Never have these issues been better highlighted than during the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Researchers have flooded the literature with preprint publications as stopgaps to meet the desperate need for knowledge about the disease. These unreviewed articles initially outnumbered those published in conventional journals and helped steer the mainstream scientific community at the start of the pandemic. In surveying select preprint servers, the authors discovered varying usability, review practices, and acceptance polices.
While vital in the rapid dispensation of science, preprint manuscripts promulgate their conclusions without peer review and possess the capacity to misinform. Undoubtedly part of the future of science, conscientious consumers will need to appreciate not only their utility, but also their limitations.
背景、目的和目标:本研究旨在探讨预印本出版对健康科学研究的影响,并在当前的 2019 年冠状病毒病(COVID-19)大流行期间调查流行的预印本服务器。
作者通过查询三个生物医学数据库(MEDLINE、Web of Science 和 Google Scholar)和两个预印本服务器(MedRxiv 和 SSRN),以确定与预印本相关的文献。此外,他们通过提交六篇论文的样本评估了 12 个具有 COVID-19 研究的预印本服务器。
健康科学研究领域中预印本出版物的数量和重要性都显著增加。通过将手稿发布到预印本服务器上,研究人员能够立即传达其发现,从而促进及时反馈和促进合作。这样做,他们还可以减少发表偏倚并提高方法学透明度。但是,通过绕过同行评审过程,学术界承担着传播错误或误解的数据的风险,并遭受下游后果。在当前的 COVID-19 大流行中,这些问题从未如此突出。研究人员已经在文献中充斥了大量的预印本出版物,作为满足对疾病知识的迫切需求的权宜之计。这些未经评审的文章最初数量超过了在传统期刊上发表的文章,并在大流行开始时帮助引导了主流科学界。在调查选择的预印本服务器时,作者发现了不同的可用性、审查实践和接受政策。
虽然预印本手稿在快速传播科学方面至关重要,但它们在没有同行评审的情况下传播其结论,并有可能造成误解。它们无疑是科学的未来的一部分,有识之士的消费者不仅需要了解其用途,还需要了解其局限性。