Cargando…

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

OBJECTIVES: The 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 SETTING: Preprint platforms that were launched up to 25 June 2019 and have a biomedic...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kirkham, Jamie J, Penfold, Naomi C, Murphy, Fiona, Boutron, Isabelle, Ioannidis, John P, Polka, Jessica, Moher, David
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BMJ Publishing Group 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7778769/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33376175
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041849
_version_ 1783631191111368704
author Kirkham, Jamie J
Penfold, Naomi C
Murphy, Fiona
Boutron, Isabelle
Ioannidis, John P
Polka, Jessica
Moher, David
author_facet Kirkham, Jamie J
Penfold, Naomi C
Murphy, Fiona
Boutron, Isabelle
Ioannidis, John P
Polka, Jessica
Moher, David
author_sort Kirkham, Jamie J
collection PubMed
description OBJECTIVES: The 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 SETTING: Preprint 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). RESULTS: A 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. CONCLUSION: A 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.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-7778769
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher BMJ Publishing Group
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-77787692021-01-11 Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting Kirkham, Jamie J Penfold, Naomi C Murphy, Fiona Boutron, Isabelle Ioannidis, John P Polka, Jessica Moher, David BMJ Open Medical Publishing and Peer Review OBJECTIVES: The 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 SETTING: Preprint 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). RESULTS: A 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. CONCLUSION: A 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. BMJ Publishing Group 2020-12-29 /pmc/articles/PMC7778769/ /pubmed/33376175 http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041849 Text en © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2020. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix, transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
spellingShingle Medical Publishing and Peer Review
Kirkham, Jamie J
Penfold, Naomi C
Murphy, Fiona
Boutron, Isabelle
Ioannidis, John P
Polka, Jessica
Moher, David
Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting
title Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting
title_full Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting
title_fullStr Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting
title_full_unstemmed Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting
title_short Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting
title_sort systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting
topic Medical Publishing and Peer Review
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7778769/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33376175
http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041849
work_keys_str_mv AT kirkhamjamiej systematicexaminationofpreprintplatformsforuseinthemedicalandbiomedicalsciencessetting
AT penfoldnaomic systematicexaminationofpreprintplatformsforuseinthemedicalandbiomedicalsciencessetting
AT murphyfiona systematicexaminationofpreprintplatformsforuseinthemedicalandbiomedicalsciencessetting
AT boutronisabelle systematicexaminationofpreprintplatformsforuseinthemedicalandbiomedicalsciencessetting
AT ioannidisjohnp systematicexaminationofpreprintplatformsforuseinthemedicalandbiomedicalsciencessetting
AT polkajessica systematicexaminationofpreprintplatformsforuseinthemedicalandbiomedicalsciencessetting
AT moherdavid systematicexaminationofpreprintplatformsforuseinthemedicalandbiomedicalsciencessetting