An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]
Background Preprints are scientific manuscripts that are made available on open-access servers but are not yet peer-reviewed.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. U...
Saved in:
| Main Authors: | , , , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
F1000 Research Ltd
2024-11-01
|
| Series: | F1000Research |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://f1000research.com/articles/13-6/v2 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850161680925851648 |
|---|---|
| author | Valerie Chow Lucas J. Santoro Jeremy Y. Ng David Moher Kelly D. Cobey Anna Catharina Vieira Armond Sanam Ebrahimzadeh Pirshahid |
| author_facet | Valerie Chow Lucas J. Santoro Jeremy Y. Ng David Moher Kelly D. Cobey Anna Catharina Vieira Armond Sanam Ebrahimzadeh Pirshahid |
| author_sort | Valerie Chow |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | Background Preprints are scientific manuscripts that are made available on open-access servers but are not yet peer-reviewed.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. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-07575c46fa684cd7ad143df36c9bebc4 |
| institution | OA Journals |
| issn | 2046-1402 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-11-01 |
| publisher | F1000 Research Ltd |
| record_format | Article |
| series | F1000Research |
| spelling | doaj-art-07575c46fa684cd7ad143df36c9bebc42025-08-20T02:22:45ZengF1000 Research LtdF1000Research2046-14022024-11-011310.12688/f1000research.143013.2173500An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations]Valerie Chow0Lucas J. Santoro1Jeremy Y. Ng2https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0031-5873David Moher3https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2434-4206Kelly D. Cobey4https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2797-1686Anna Catharina Vieira Armond5Sanam Ebrahimzadeh Pirshahid6Department of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L8, CanadaDepartment of Health Research Methods, Evidence, and Impact, Faculty of Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, L8S 4L8, CanadaCentre for Journalology, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, CanadaCentre for Journalology, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, CanadaMeta-Research and Open Science Program, University of Ottawa Heart Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, K1Y 4W7, CanadaCentre for Journalology, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, CanadaCentre for Journalology, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, CanadaBackground 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.https://f1000research.com/articles/13-6/v2biomedicine open science open science practices preprinting preprints researcherseng |
| spellingShingle | Valerie Chow Lucas J. Santoro Jeremy Y. Ng David Moher Kelly D. Cobey Anna Catharina Vieira Armond Sanam Ebrahimzadeh Pirshahid An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] F1000Research biomedicine open science open science practices preprinting preprints researchers eng |
| title | An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] |
| title_full | An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] |
| title_fullStr | An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] |
| title_full_unstemmed | An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] |
| title_short | An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers [version 2; peer review: 1 approved, 2 approved with reservations] |
| title_sort | international cross sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers version 2 peer review 1 approved 2 approved with reservations |
| topic | biomedicine open science open science practices preprinting preprints researchers eng |
| url | https://f1000research.com/articles/13-6/v2 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT valeriechow aninternationalcrosssectionalsurveyofpreprintattitudesamongbiomedicalresearchersversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations AT lucasjsantoro aninternationalcrosssectionalsurveyofpreprintattitudesamongbiomedicalresearchersversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations AT jeremyyng aninternationalcrosssectionalsurveyofpreprintattitudesamongbiomedicalresearchersversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations AT davidmoher aninternationalcrosssectionalsurveyofpreprintattitudesamongbiomedicalresearchersversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations AT kellydcobey aninternationalcrosssectionalsurveyofpreprintattitudesamongbiomedicalresearchersversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations AT annacatharinavieiraarmond aninternationalcrosssectionalsurveyofpreprintattitudesamongbiomedicalresearchersversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations AT sanamebrahimzadehpirshahid aninternationalcrosssectionalsurveyofpreprintattitudesamongbiomedicalresearchersversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations AT valeriechow internationalcrosssectionalsurveyofpreprintattitudesamongbiomedicalresearchersversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations AT lucasjsantoro internationalcrosssectionalsurveyofpreprintattitudesamongbiomedicalresearchersversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations AT jeremyyng internationalcrosssectionalsurveyofpreprintattitudesamongbiomedicalresearchersversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations AT davidmoher internationalcrosssectionalsurveyofpreprintattitudesamongbiomedicalresearchersversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations AT kellydcobey internationalcrosssectionalsurveyofpreprintattitudesamongbiomedicalresearchersversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations AT annacatharinavieiraarmond internationalcrosssectionalsurveyofpreprintattitudesamongbiomedicalresearchersversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations AT sanamebrahimzadehpirshahid internationalcrosssectionalsurveyofpreprintattitudesamongbiomedicalresearchersversion2peerreview1approved2approvedwithreservations |