Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting. Issue 12 (29th December 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Kirkham, Jamie J; Penfold, Naomi C; Murphy, Fiona; Boutron, Isabelle; Ioannidis, John P; Polka, Jessica; Moher, David
• Is Part Of: BMJ open. Volume 10:Issue 12(2020)
• Publication Date: 2020-12-29
• Subjects: statistics & research methods -- medical journalism -- medical ethics; Medicine -- Research -- Periodicals; 610.72
• DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041849
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 2044-6055

Abstract

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. Study design and setting: Preprint platforms that were launched up to 25 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). 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, 6 (14%) were provided by F1000 Research (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. 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. 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.