Abstract
AbstractAmidst the COVID-19 pandemic, preprints in the biomedical sciences are being posted and accessed at unprecedented rates, drawing widespread attention from the general public, press and policymakers for the first time. This phenomenon has sharpened longstanding questions about the reliability of information shared prior to journal peer review. Does the information shared in preprints typically withstand the scrutiny of peer review, or are conclusions likely to change in the version of record? We assessed preprints from bioRxiv and medRxiv that had been posted and subsequently published in a journal through 30th April 2020, representing the initial phase of the pandemic response. We utilised a combination of automatic and manual annotations to quantify how an article changed between the preprinted and published version. We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, the conclusions of 7.2% of non-COVID-19-related and 17.2% of COVID-19-related abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not qualitatively change the conclusions of the paper.
Publisher
Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
Reference35 articles.
1. WHO. COVID-19 situation report 19. 8 Feb 2020 [cited 13 May 2020]. Available: https://www.who.int/docs/default-source/coronaviruse/situation-reports/20200501-covid-19-sitrep.pdf
2. A Novel Coronavirus from Patients with Pneumonia in China, 2019
3. The species Severe acute respiratory syndrome-related coronavirus: classifying 2019-nCoV and naming it SARS-CoV-2
4. bioRxiv: the preprint server for biology
5. Kaiser J , 2014, Am 12:00. BioRxiv at 1 year: A promising start. In: Science | AAAS [Internet]. 11 Nov 2014 [cited 13 May 2020]. Available: https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2014/11/biorxiv-1-year-promising-start
Cited by
6 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