Abstract
Aim: The objective of this study was to evaluate the adherence to the preprint publication format by a sample of Brazilian researchers. Methods: Searches were carried out, in September 2021, on the MedArxiv, OSF, and SciELO preprints platforms, looking for publications in preprint format by all Brazilian researchers of graduate programs in dentistry (n=211) who were productivity fellows in 2021 (PQ). Searches were performed by typing the authors’ full names and the possible variations, as indicated by each author's curriculum, openly available on the Lattes website platform. The Friedman test, with the Durbin-Conover post-hoc (α=0.05) was applied in order to compare the three platforms. Spearman's correlation test (α=0.05) was performed to assess the possible correlations between the number of preprints and age, career stage, and the researcher’s scholarship level variables. Results: From the 211 researchers searched, 22 (10.4%) published 1 (one) preprint on at least one platform. A total of 39 published preprints were found at MedArxiv (n=19, 48.7%), SciELO preprints (n=18, 46.2%), and OSF platforms (n=2, 5.1%). There was no difference between the adherence to MedArxiv and SciELO preprints (p = 0.731). However, the OSF platform presented the lowest adherence, statistically differing from MedArxiv (p=0.008) and SciELO preprints platforms (p=0.003). In addition, no correlation was found between the publication of preprints and the researcher's age (p=0.128), career stage (p=0.248), or the researcher's scholarship level (p=0.661). Conclusion: It was possible to observe a low adherence to the preprints’ publications by Brazilian researchers’ productivity fellows of graduate programs in dentistry.
Publisher
Salud, Ciencia y Tecnologia
Reference27 articles.
1. Maslove DM. Medical Preprints - A Debate Worth Having. JAMA. 2018;319(5):443–444. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2017.17566
2. Farley I. The fundamentals of content types: Preprints, Crossmark, translations and more. SciELO em Perspectiva [Internet]. Isaac Farley: 2018. https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2018/08/22/os-fundamentos-sobre-os-tipos-de-conteudo-preprints-crossmark-traducoes-e-muito-mais/#.Y5L2Z3bMLIU.
3. Malički M, Jerončić A, Ter Riet G, et al. Preprint Servers’ Policies, Submission Requirements, and Transparency in Reporting and Research Integrity Recommendations. JAMA. 2020;324(18):1901–1903. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.17195
4. COPE Council. COPE Discussion document: Preprints [Internet]. United Kingdom: COPE Council. March 2018. https://publicationethics.org/files/u7140/COPE_Preprints_Mar18.pdf
5. Sever R, Roeder T, Hindle S, Sussman L, Black KJ, Argentine J, et al. bioRxiv: the preprint server for biology. [Preprint]. 2019. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/833400v1. DOI: bioRxiv:10.1101/833400v1
Cited by
9 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献