Skip to main content
bioRxiv
  • Home
  • About
  • Submit
  • ALERTS / RSS
Advanced Search
New Results

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

View ORCID ProfileJamie J Kirkham, View ORCID ProfileNaomi Penfold, Fiona Murphy, View ORCID ProfileIsabelle Boutron, John PA Ioannidis, View ORCID ProfileJessica K Polka, View ORCID ProfileDavid Moher
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.27.063578
Jamie J Kirkham
1Centre for Biostatistics, Manchester Academic Health Science Centre, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jamie J Kirkham
  • For correspondence: jamie.kirkham@manchester.ac.uk
Naomi Penfold
2ASAPbio, San Francisco, CA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Naomi Penfold
Fiona Murphy
3Murphy Mitchell Consulting Ltd
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Isabelle Boutron
4Université de Paris, Centre of Research in Epidemiology and Statistics (CRESS), Inserm, Paris, F-75004 France
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Isabelle Boutron
John PA Ioannidis
5Meta-Research Innovation Center at Stanford (METRICS) and Departments of Medicine, of Epidemiology and Population Health, of Biomedical Data Science, and of Statistics, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Jessica K Polka
2ASAPbio, San Francisco, CA, USA
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for Jessica K Polka
David Moher
6Centre for Journalology, Clinical Epidemiology Program, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada
7School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • ORCID record for David Moher
  • Abstract
  • Full Text
  • Info/History
  • Metrics
  • Supplementary material
  • Data/Code
  • Preview PDF
Loading

ABSTRACT

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. We also aim to provide a searchable database to enable relevant stakeholders to compare between platforms.

Study Design and Setting Preprint platforms that were launched up to 25th 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). Data collected were in relation to scope and ownership; content-specific characteristics and information relating to submission, journal transfer options, and external discoverability; screening, moderation, and permanence of content; usage metrics and metadata. Where possible, all online data were verified by the platform owner or representative by correspondence.

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, six (14%) were provided by F1000 Research Ltd (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. The three most common screening checks related to the scope of the article, plagiarism and legal/ethical/societal issues and compliance. 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. Forty-one (93%) platforms currently have usage metrics, with the most common metric being the number of downloads presented on the abstract page.

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. However, the process by which content is screened before online posting and withdrawn or removed after posting varies between platforms, which may be associated with platform operation, ownership, governance and financing.

  • In concurrence with an increase in the number of preprint servers and platforms supporting biomedical and medical sciences research since 2013, there has been substantial growth in the number of preprints posted in this research area.

  • The significant benefits of accelerated dissemination of research that preprints offer has attracted the support of many major funders.

  • The raised profile of preprints has led to their wider acceptance in institutional and individual level assessment.

  • This is the first full examination of the characteristics and policies of 44 preprint platforms with biomedical and medical scope. We use a robust methodological approach to extract relevant information from web-based material with input from preprint platform owners.

  • Despite concerns regarding the permanence and quality of preprints, most preprint platforms have long-term preservation strategies and many have screening checks (for example, a basic check for the relevance of content) in place. For some platforms, these checks are performed by researchers with content expertise.

  • We provide a searchable database as a valuable resource for researchers, funders and policymakers in the biomedical and medical science field to determine which preprint platforms are relevant to their research scope and which have the functionality and policies that they value most.

Competing Interest Statement

Jessica Polka is Executive Director of ASAPbio.

Footnotes

  • https://zenodo.org/record/3700874

Copyright 
The copyright holder for this preprint is the author/funder, who has granted bioRxiv a license to display the preprint in perpetuity. It is made available under a CC-BY 4.0 International license.
Back to top
PreviousNext
Posted April 28, 2020.
Download PDF

Supplementary Material

Data/Code
Email

Thank you for your interest in spreading the word about bioRxiv.

NOTE: Your email address is requested solely to identify you as the sender of this article.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
A systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from bioRxiv
(Your Name) thought you would like to see this page from the bioRxiv website.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Share
A systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting
Jamie J Kirkham, Naomi Penfold, Fiona Murphy, Isabelle Boutron, John PA Ioannidis, Jessica K Polka, David Moher
bioRxiv 2020.04.27.063578; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.27.063578
Digg logo Reddit logo Twitter logo Facebook logo Google logo LinkedIn logo Mendeley logo
Citation Tools
A systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting
Jamie J Kirkham, Naomi Penfold, Fiona Murphy, Isabelle Boutron, John PA Ioannidis, Jessica K Polka, David Moher
bioRxiv 2020.04.27.063578; doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.27.063578

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Subject Area

  • Scientific Communication and Education
Subject Areas
All Articles
  • Animal Behavior and Cognition (4113)
  • Biochemistry (8815)
  • Bioengineering (6519)
  • Bioinformatics (23462)
  • Biophysics (11789)
  • Cancer Biology (9209)
  • Cell Biology (13322)
  • Clinical Trials (138)
  • Developmental Biology (7436)
  • Ecology (11409)
  • Epidemiology (2066)
  • Evolutionary Biology (15150)
  • Genetics (10436)
  • Genomics (14043)
  • Immunology (9171)
  • Microbiology (22154)
  • Molecular Biology (8812)
  • Neuroscience (47569)
  • Paleontology (350)
  • Pathology (1428)
  • Pharmacology and Toxicology (2491)
  • Physiology (3730)
  • Plant Biology (8080)
  • Scientific Communication and Education (1437)
  • Synthetic Biology (2221)
  • Systems Biology (6037)
  • Zoology (1253)