Journal attitudes and outcomes of preprints in dermatology – Jia – – British Journal of Dermatology – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  The use of preprints, manuscripts that can be uploaded to a public server and made almost immediately available for public dissemination without peer review, is becoming increasingly common.1 Preprint servers are not typically associated with established peer?reviewed journals and often operate independently. Proponents of preprints point toward improved rapid dissemination of results and opportunities for crowdsourced feedback before submission to peer?reviewed journals.1 Conversely, inconsistent upload criteria among preprint servers (such as lack of guidance for reporting conflict of interest or image manipulation),1 and the risk for widespread discourse of non?peer reviewed results by news media may impinge on research integrity.2 As members of the public may not understand the difference between preprints and traditionally peer?reviewed articles, preprints have the potential to cause widespread confusion and mistrust.2 Use of preprints may also make publication of results in traditional journals more difficult, as the results may be perceived to be less novel. Despite controversy, the number of preprints continue to rise.3 There is limited understanding of how dermatology journals view and consider preprints. In this study, we explore dermatology journal policies toward the submission of preprint articles for publication, and corresponding publication outcomes of dermatology articles previously uploaded to a large clinically oriented preprint server.

 

Journal attitudes and outcomes of preprints in dermatology – Jia – – British Journal of Dermatology – Wiley Online Library

Abstract:  The use of preprints, manuscripts that can be uploaded to a public server and made almost immediately available for public dissemination without peer review, is becoming increasingly common.1 Preprint servers are not typically associated with established peer?reviewed journals and often operate independently. Proponents of preprints point toward improved rapid dissemination of results and opportunities for crowdsourced feedback before submission to peer?reviewed journals.1 Conversely, inconsistent upload criteria among preprint servers (such as lack of guidance for reporting conflict of interest or image manipulation),1 and the risk for widespread discourse of non?peer reviewed results by news media may impinge on research integrity.2 As members of the public may not understand the difference between preprints and traditionally peer?reviewed articles, preprints have the potential to cause widespread confusion and mistrust.2 Use of preprints may also make publication of results in traditional journals more difficult, as the results may be perceived to be less novel. Despite controversy, the number of preprints continue to rise.3 There is limited understanding of how dermatology journals view and consider preprints. In this study, we explore dermatology journal policies toward the submission of preprint articles for publication, and corresponding publication outcomes of dermatology articles previously uploaded to a large clinically oriented preprint server.

 

We need to talk about preprints: how (not) to deal with the media « KU Leuven blogt

“Online preprint servers such as arXiv and bioRxiv allow researchers to share their findings with the scientific community before peer review. They are also a goldmine for journalists looking for their next big story. Here are some tips to navigate a potential media minefield….”

Editorial policies – Preprint Sharing | Springer

“Springer journals encourage posting of preprints of primary research manuscripts on preprint servers, authors’ or institutional websites, and open communications between researchers whether on community preprint servers or preprint commenting platforms. Preprints are defined as an author’s version of a research manuscript prior to formal peer review at a journal, which is deposited on a public server (as described in Preprints for the life sciences. Science 352, 899–901; 2016); preprints may be posted at any time during the peer review process. Posting of preprints is not considered prior publication and will not jeopardize consideration at Springer journals. Manuscripts posted on preprint servers will not be taken into account when determining the advance provided by a study under consideration at a Springer journal.

Our policy on posting, licensing, citation of preprints and communications with the media about preprints of primary research manuscripts is summarized below….”

Update to the handling of “Preprints” by the Journal of Anesthesia | SpringerLink

“Until now, “the Journal of Anesthesia” and its sister journal “JA Clinical Reports” followed a policy of immediately rejecting all submissions that had posted its preprint version on the web, considering them duplicate submissions. The basis for this strict stance was to raise the bar for quality submissions, as there were endless reports of falsification in research papers by anesthesiologists in Japan….

Springer, the publisher of the Journal of Anesthesia, goes so far as to recommend researchers post preprints [2]. Their stance is based on comments published in Science in 2016, expressing that researchers should post a preprint to one of the applicable servers while simultaneously submitting the manuscript to a journal to undergo peer-review [3]. If the authors have posted a preprint, Springer instructs them to disclose details of the preprint, including the DOI and licensing terms, when submitting their manuscript for publication. If the manuscript is subsequently published, the authors should update the preprint record with reference to the publication….

 

 

Consequently, beginning in 2021, “the Journal of Anesthesia” and its sister journal “JA Clinical Reports” will start accepting manuscripts that have posted their preprints on the web. Authors will also be able to resubmit manuscripts that the Journal of Anesthesia and JA Clinical Reports previously rejected because of their preprint version on the server. Please note that manuscripts must include information about existing preprints and that preprints cannot be cited in the manuscript, as they are presumed to have identical content.”

 

Will COVID-19 mark the end of scientific publishing as we know it?

“Under the pressure of a global health crisis, the argument for open access has sunk in. Following calls from the World Health Organization and government leaders, over 150 publishers, companies, and research institutions have agreed to temporarily make all content related to COVID-19 free to read, ensuring efforts to understand the virus can go forth undeterred….

Is this the catalyst that breaks up the bonds of an old publishing model once and for all? …”

Assessment of Preprint Policies of Top-Ranked Clinical Journals | Medical Journals and Publishing

Abstract:  Introduction

The clinical research community has adopted the use of preprint servers, which provide outlets for preliminary reports of research that has not been peer-reviewed.1 Preprint servers support open scholarship, allow research to be disseminated quickly, offer opportunities for peer feedback before formal submission to a journal, and have been increasingly adopted by the biological, physical, and economic scientific communities.2-4 However, for preprint potential to be realized in clinical research, peer-reviewed journals must be willing to consider manuscripts that were previously posted on preprint servers (preprints) for publication. Because systematic information about contemporary clinical journal policies on preprints is lacking,5 our objective was to assess the preprint publication policies of the 100 clinical journals with the highest impact factors.

 

Methods

This cross-sectional study followed the Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) reporting guideline. For this study, we used InCites Journal Citation Reports (JCR) to identify journals across all fields with a 2018 journal impact factor greater than 5. We manually screened all identified journals by title and categories on JCR to find the 100 top-ranked clinical journals and included only those that publish original research.

For each qualifying journal, we checked a succession of resources to ascertain its editorial policy on preprints: the journal website; the publisher website; the Transpose Database6; and the first 10 pages of a Google search containing the journal name and the term preprint. Once a preprint policy was located, we classified each journal’s policy by the following categories: preprints allowed (if preprints will be considered for publication), case-by-case determination (if preprints are evaluated on an individual basis), and preprints prohibited (if preprints will not be considered for publication). Data were collected on April 23, 2020. We conducted descriptive analyses using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Corporation).

Results

Among the 100 top-ranked clinical journals, the median (interquartile range) impact factor was 13.7 (10.7-19.0). Most journals (86 [86%]) allowed preprints (Table 1). In contrast, 13 journals (13%) evaluated each preprint independently to determine whether to reject it on the basis of its prior preprint status (case-by-case determination). Only 1 journal (1%) had a policy that prohibited preprints (preprints prohibited). There was no association between the median impact factor and the category of preprint policy (Table 2).

10 tips for submitting a successful preprint | Nature Index

“The COVID-19 pandemic has not only accelerated the already rapid growth in submissions of preprints in the biological sciences, but has brought them to the public’s attention as never before.

For example, the medical sciences preprint server medRxiv has already posted more than 3,200 preprints related to the disease. In April, it recorded 10 million views from scientists and the general public.

Many authors in the biological and medical sciences are new to the format. Nature Index asked five experts for their advice on preprint etiquette and best practice….”

Coronavirus Research Moves Faster than Medical Journals

“Many of the coronavirus-related papers being posted on MedRxiv are rushed and flawed, and some are terrible. But a lot report serious research findings, some of which will eventually find their way into prestigious journals, which have been softening their stance on previously released research. (“We encourage posting to preprint servers as a way to share information immediately,” emails Jennifer Zeis, director of communications at the New England Journal of Medicine.) In the meantime, the research is out there, being commented on and followed up on by other scientists, and reported on in the news media. The journals, which normally keep their content behind steep paywalls, are also offering coronavirus articles outside of it. New efforts to sort through the resulting bounty of available research are emerging, from a group of Johns Hopkins University scholars sifting manually through new Covid-19 papers to a 59,000-article machine-readable data set, requested by the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and enabled by an assortment of tech corporations and academic and philanthropic organizations, that is meant to be mined for insights using artificial intelligence and other such means.

This is the future for scientific communication that has been predicted since the spread of the internet began to enable it in the early 1990s (and to some extent long before then), yet proved slow and fitful in its arrival. It involves more or less open access to scientific research and data, and a more-open review process with a much wider range of potential peers than the peer review offered by journals. For its most enthusiastic boosters, it is also an opportunity to break through disciplinary barriers, broaden and improve the standards for research success and generally just make science work better. To skeptics, it means abandoning high standards and a viable economic model for research publishing in favor of a chaotic, uncertain new approach.

I’m mostly on the side of the boosters here, but have learned during five years of writing on and off about academic publishing that the existing way of doing things is quite well entrenched, and that would-be innovators often misunderstand the challenges involved in displacing or replacing it….”