Skip to content

ACN - 101321555 | ABN - 39101321555

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

AHRECS icon
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Menu
  • Home
  • About Us
    • Consultants
    • Services
  • Previous Projects
  • Blog
  • Resources
  • Feeds
  • Contact Us
  • More
    • Request a Quote
    • Susbcribe to REM
    • Subscribe to VIP
Exclude terms...
Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander
AHRECS
Analysis
Animal ethics
Animal Ethics Committee
Animal handling
Animal housing
Animal Research Ethics
Animal Welfare
ANZCCART
Artificial Intelligence
Arts
Australia
Authorship
Belief
Beneficence
Big data
Big data
Biobank
Bioethics
Biomedical
Biospecimens
Breaches
Cartoon/Funny
Case studies
Clinical trial
Collaborative research
Conflicts of interest
Consent
Controversy/Scandal
Controversy/Scandal
Creative
Culture
Data management
Database
Dual-use
Essential Reading
Ethical review
Ethnography
Euthanasia
Evaluative practice/quality assurance
Even though i
First People
Fraud
Gender
Genetics
Get off Gary Play man of the dog
Good practice
Guidance
Honesty
HREC
Human research ethics
Humanities
Institutional responsibilities
International
Journal
Justice
Links
Media
Medical research
Merit and integrity
Methodology
Monitoring
New Zealand
News
Online research
Peer review
Performance
Primary materials
Principles
Privacy
Protection for participants
Psychology
Publication ethics
Questionable Publishers
Research ethics committees
Research integrity
Research Misconduct
Research results
Researcher responsibilities
Resources
Respect for persons
Sample paperwork
sd
se
Serious Adverse Event
Social Science
SoTL
Standards
Supervision
Training
Vulnerability
What was that say
x
Young people
Exclude news

Sort by

Animal Ethics Biosafety Human Research Ethics Research Integrity

Publishing of COVID-19 preprints in peer-reviewed journals, preprinting trends, public discussion and quality issues (Papers: Ivan Kodvanj, et al | January 2022)

Posted by Dr Gary Allen in Human Research Ethics, Research Integrity on February 11, 2022
Keywords: Good practice, Journal, Medical research, Publication ethics, Research results

The Linked Original Item was Posted On January, 31 2022 13:57:30

the internet.

As we have observed recently, this paper raises an interesting question for us: Essentially, do pre-print papers permit a wider and open peer review system, where anyone can review and criticise. This is more democratic than the closed shop peer-review where only 2-3 people do the review and in some instances can be gamed by sending to friendly peer reviewers (or potentially fake reviewers).  We are great supporters of the potential value of open science.

Abstract
COVID-19-related (vs. non-related) articles appear to be more expeditiously processed and published in peer-reviewed journals. We aimed to evaluate: (i) whether COVID-19-related preprints were favored for publication, (ii) preprinting trends and public discussion of the preprints, and (iii) the relationship between the publication topic (COVID-19-related or not) and quality issues. Manuscripts deposited at bioRxiv and medRxiv between January 1 and September 27 2020 were assessed for the probability of publishing in peer-reviewed journals, and those published were evaluated for submission-to-acceptance time. The extent of public discussion was assessed based on Altmetric and Disqus data. The Retraction Watch Database and PubMed were used to explore the retraction of COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 articles and preprints. With adjustment for the preprinting server and number of deposited versions, COVID-19-related preprints were more likely to be published within 120 days since the deposition of the first version (OR = 1.96, 95% CI: 1.80–2.14) as well as over the entire observed period (OR = 1.39, 95% CI: 1.31–1.48). Submission-to-acceptance was by 35.85 days (95% CI: 32.25–39.45) shorter for COVID-19 articles. Public discussion of preprints was modest and COVID-19 articles were overrepresented in the pool of retracted articles in 2020. Current data suggest a preference for publication of COVID-19-related preprints over the observed period.

Kodvanj, I., Homolak, J., Virag, D. Trkulja, V (2022) Publishing of COVID-19 preprints in peer-reviewed journals, preprinting trends, public discussion and quality issues. Scientometrics (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-021-04249-7
Publisher (Open Access): https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11192-021-04249-7

Publishing of COVID-19 preprints in peer-reviewed journals, preprinting trends, public discussion and quality issues - Scientometrics
COVID-19-related (vs. non-related) articles appear to be more expeditiously processed and published in peer-reviewed journals. We aimed to evaluate: (i) whether COVID-19-related preprints were favored for publication, (ii) preprinting trends and public discussion of the preprints, and (iii) the rela…

Related Reading

Robustness of evidence reported in preprints during peer review (Papers: Lindsay Nelson et. al. | November 2022)

Preprints Involving Medical Research—Do the Benefits Outweigh the Challenges? (Editorial: Annette Flanagin, et al | November 2020)

Bibliometric and Altmetric Analysis of Retracted Articles on COVID-19 (Papers: Hiba Khan | February 2022)

Publishing of COVID-19 preprints in peer-reviewed journals, preprinting trends, public discussion and quality issues (Papers: Ivan Kodvanj, et al | January 2022)

The Attack of Zombie Science – Nautilus (Natalia Pasternak, et al | January 2022)

Opinion: In Defense of Preprints – The Scientist (Richard Sever & John Inglis | November 2021)

The Coming Publication Apocalypse – The Grumpy Geophysicist (January 2021)

The dangers of undercooked science and a hungry public – The Seattle Times (Seth S. Leopold | November 2021)

Preprint advocates must also fight for research integrity – Nature (Gowri Gopalakrishna | September 2021)

Preprints Are Not Going to Replace Journals – Scholarly Kitchen (Haseeb Irfanullah | June 2021)

The 10,000-watt Bulb: How Preprints Shine a Light on Misconduct – Scholarly Kitchen (Michele Avissar-Whiting | June 2021)

(EU) How pandemic-driven preprints are driving open scrutiny of research – Horizon (Rex Merrifield | April 2021)

Communicating Scientific Uncertainty in an Age of COVID-19: An Investigation into the Use of Preprints by Digital Media Outlets (Papers Alice Fleerackers, et al | January 2021)

Pivotal Year for Preprints – Inside Higher Ed (Lilah Burke | January 2021)

Changes in the Scientific Information Environment During the COVID-19 Pandemic: The Importance of Scientific Situational Awareness in Responding to the Infodemic – Mary Ann Liebert, Inc (John K. Iskander | December 2020)

Shepherding preprints through a pandemic (Paper – Feature: Theodora Bloom | )

Preprints Involving Medical Research—Do the Benefits Outweigh the Challenges? (Papers (Editorial): Annette Flanagin, et al | November 2020)

Journalism, Preprint Servers, and the Truth: Allocating Accountability – Scholarly Kitchen (Rick Anderson | December 2020)

Preprinting a pandemic: the role of preprints in the COVID-19 pandemic (Pre-Print Papers: Nicholas Fraser, et al | May 2020)

Disseminating Scientific Results in the Age of Rapid Communication – EOS (Shobha Kondragunta, et al | October 2020)

Coronavirus Tests Science’s Need for Speed Limits – New York Times (Wudan Yan | April 2020)

Assuring research integrity during a pandemic – BMJopinion (Gowri Gopalakrishna, et al | June 2020)

Science Communications In the Time of Coronavirus – WYNC Studios (March 2020)

Born Digital – The Expanding Universe of Research Content – Scholarly Kitchen (Judy Luther | November 2019)

Ask The Chefs: AI and Scholarly Communications – Scholarly Kitchen (Ann Michael | April 2019)

Peer Review Fails to Prevent Publication of Paper with Unsupported Claims About Peer Review – Scholarly Kitchen (Tim Vines | March 2018)

Preprints and Citations: Should Non-Peer Reviewed Material Be Included in Article References? – Scholarly Kitchen (David Crotty | March 2018)

What Is “Open Science”? (And Why Some Researchers Want It) – Futurism (Elizabeth Gilbert, Katie Corker | June 2017)

A mathematical theory of knowledge, science, bias and pseudoscience (Papers: Daniele Fanelli ​| 2016)

Related Links

  • About the contributors
  • About the keywords
  • Suggest a resource
  • Report problem/broken link
  • Request a Take Down

Compiled here are links, downloads and other resources relating to research integrity and human research ethics. more…

Resources Menu

Four hands solving a jigsaw against the sun blazing out of a cloudy sky

Research Integrity

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books
  • Animal Ethics

Human Research Ethics

  • Codes, guidelines, policies and standards
  • Guidance and resource material
  • Papers
  • Books

Research Ethics Monthly Receive copies of the Research Ethics Monthly directly
by email. We will never spam you.

  • Enter the answer as a word
  • Hidden
    This field is hidden and only used for import to Mailchimp
  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Home
  • Services
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Company
  • Terms Of Use
  • Copyright
  • Privacy Policy
  • Site Map
  • Site Map

Australasian Human Research Ethics Consultancy Services Pty Ltd (AHRECS)

Facebook-f Twitter Linkedin-in