An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers.

Q2 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics
F1000Research Pub Date : 2024-11-04 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.12688/f1000research.143013.2
Jeremy Y Ng, Valerie Chow, Lucas J Santoro, Anna Catharina Vieira Armond, Sanam Ebrahimzadeh Pirshahid, Kelly D Cobey, David Moher
{"title":"An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers.","authors":"Jeremy Y Ng, Valerie Chow, Lucas J Santoro, Anna Catharina Vieira Armond, Sanam Ebrahimzadeh Pirshahid, Kelly D Cobey, David Moher","doi":"10.12688/f1000research.143013.2","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Preprints are scientific manuscripts that are made available on open-access servers but are not yet peer-reviewed.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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12260,"journal":{"name":"F1000Research","volume":"13 ","pages":"6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-04","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11589411/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F1000Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.143013.2","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

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.

对生物医学研究人员预印本态度的国际横断面调查。
背景:预印本是在开放存取服务器上提供的科学手稿,但尚未经过同行评审。虽然预印本越来越普遍,但使用率并不理想。了解研究人员对预印本的看法和态度对于优化预印本的使用非常重要。了解知识差距和研究人员对预印本的态度有助于期刊、资助机构和大学等利益相关者更有效地使用预印本。在此,我们旨在收集国际生物医学研究人员对预印本的看法和行为:方法:我们从 MEDLINE 数据库中随机抽样,确定了在生物医学研究期刊上发表文章的通讯作者。我们提取了这些作者的姓名和电子邮件地址,邀请他们参加我们的匿名横断面调查,向参与者询问有关预印制的知识、态度和观点:共有 730 位受访者完成了调查,回复率为 3.20%,调查显示了来自全球不同学科和职业阶段的作者对预印本的广泛态度和观点。大多数受访者都熟悉预印本的概念,但大多数人以前都没有发表过预印本。项目的主要作者和期刊政策对发布预印本的决定影响最大,而雇主/研究机构的影响最小。支持开放科学实践是排名最高的激励因素,而提高作者的知名度是排名最高的发布预印本的动机:尽管许多生物医学研究人员都认识到了预印本的好处,但仍有一些人对采用这种做法犹豫不决。这可能是由于预印本普遍缺乏同行评审,以及期刊、资助机构和大学等外部机构对预印本的热情不高。今后需要开展工作,确定通过修改现行预印本制度和政策来改善研究人员态度的最佳方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
F1000Research
F1000Research Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (all)
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1646
审稿时长
1 weeks
期刊介绍: F1000Research publishes articles and other research outputs reporting basic scientific, scholarly, translational and clinical research across the physical and life sciences, engineering, medicine, social sciences and humanities. F1000Research is a scholarly publication platform set up for the scientific, scholarly and medical research community; each article has at least one author who is a qualified researcher, scholar or clinician actively working in their speciality and who has made a key contribution to the article. Articles must be original (not duplications). All research is suitable irrespective of the perceived level of interest or novelty; we welcome confirmatory and negative results, as well as null studies. F1000Research publishes different type of research, including clinical trials, systematic reviews, software tools, method articles, and many others. Reviews and Opinion articles providing a balanced and comprehensive overview of the latest discoveries in a particular field, or presenting a personal perspective on recent developments, are also welcome. See the full list of article types we accept for more information.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信