Adherence to preprints’ publication in Dentistry by Brazilian researchers
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56294/dm202360Keywords:
Preprint Publication, Open Science, Metaresearch, Access to Information, ScienceAbstract
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
References
The findings indicate a low adherence rate of the preprint publications by Brazilian researchers’ productivity fellows from graduate programs in dentistry.
REFERENCES
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
6. Alvarez GR, Caregnato SE. (2010-2015) [Preprints in High Energy Physics scientific communication: analysis of submissions in the arXiv repositor (2010-2015)]. Perspect ciênc inf. 2017;22(2):104-117.
7. SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online. About the server [Internet]. https://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo/about.
8. Velterop JJM. On peer review and preprint publication in the sciences. SciELO 20 Years Repository [Internet]. 2018. http://repository.scielo20.org/documents/article/view/85/59
9. Strasser C. Preprints: the bigger picture. Winnower. 2016;6:e146955.56313. https://doi.org/10.15200/winn.146955.56313
10. Barbosa DA, Padilha MI. Ethical dilemmas for the areas of nursing and health in relation to preprints. Rev Bras Enferm [Internet]. 2018; 71 Suppl 6: 2602 - 3. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/0034- 7167.201871supl601
11. Moher D, Bouter L, Kleinert S, Glasziou P, Sham MH, Barbour V, et al. The Hong Kong Principles for assessing researchers: Fostering research integrity. PLoS Biol. 2020;18(7): e3000737.
12. Souza JRS. The emergence of preprints for Brazilian science: considerations from the Nursing area. Rev Esc Enferm USP. 2019;53:e03534. http://dx.doi.org/10.1590/S1980-220X2019020803534
13. Mueller SPM. [Scientific communication and the free access to knowledge movement]. Ciência da informação. 2006;35(2):27-3.
14. Feldman S, Lo K, Ammar W. Citation count analysis for papers with preprints. arXiv: 1805.05238 [Preprint]. 2018: [7 p.]. https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.05238
15. Fu DY, Hughey JJ. Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the peer-reviewed article. Elife. 2019 Dec 6;8:e52646. https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52646.
16. Packer AL, Santos S, Meneghini R. [SciELO Preprints on the way]. SciELO Perspectiva [Internet]. Abel L Packer, Solange Santos and Rogerio Meneghini. 2017. https://blog.scielo.org/blog/2017/02/22/scielo-preprints-a-caminho
17. Watt RG, Daly B, Allison P, Macpherson LMD, Venturelli R, Listl S, et al. Ending the neglect of global oral health: time for radical action. Lancet. 2019 Jul 20;394(10194):261-272. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31133-X.
18. Von ELM E, Altman DG, Egger M, Pocock SJ, Gotzsche PC, Vandenbroucke JP. The Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (STROBE) Statement: guidelines for reporting observational studies. Equator Network. [Internet] 2007. https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/strobe/
19. Leite ACF, and Neto IR. A profile of researchers in education with productivity grants from Brazil’s National Council for Technological and Scientific Development (CNPq). Revista Brasileira de Ensino Superior. 2017;3(4):97-112 https://doi.org/10.18256/2447-3944.2017.v3i4.2350
20. Massey DS, et al. Assessment of Preprint Policies of Top-Ranked Clinical Journals. JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(7):e2011127. https://doi.org/10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.11127
21. Cenci MS, Franco MC, Raggio DP, Moher D, Pereira-Cenci T. Transparency in clinical trials: Adding value to paediatric dental research. Int J Paediatr Dent. 2020 Dec;31 Suppl 1:4-13. https://doi.org/10.1111/ipd.12769
22. Cenci J, Correa MOO, Vargas Junior FA, Cenci MS, & Montagner AF. [Adherence to the preprint format by professors of dentistry at public universities in Rio Grande do Sul]. Revista Da Faculdade De Odontologia De Porto Alegre. 2022;63(1):61-69. https://doi.org/10.22456/2177-0018.118837
23. Feitler B. A caminho de uma “cultura de preprints”? [Towards a “preprint culture”?] Rev Bras Hist. 2019;39(81):7-11.
24. Tijdink J, Malicki M, Bouter L. Are preprints a problem? 5 ways to improve the quality and credibility of preprints. Impact of Social Sciences Blog [Internet]. Amsterdam: Joeri Tijdink, Mario Malicki and Lex Bouter. 2020. https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/09/23/are-preprints-a-problem-5-ways-to-improve-the-quality-and-credibility-of-preprints.
25. Fraser N, Brierley L, Dey G, Polka JK, Pálfy M, Nanni F, et al. The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape. PLoS Biol. 2021;19(4):e3000959. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959
26. Polka JK, Dey G, Pálfy M, Nanni F, Brierley L, Fraser N, et al. Preprints in motion: tracking changes between posting and journal publication. bioRxiv:2021.02.20.432090 [Preprint]. 2021. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.02.20.432090v3
27. Krumholz HM, et al. Submissions and Downloads of Preprints in the First Year of medRxiv. JAMA. 2020;324(18):1903-1905. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.2020.17529
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2023 Jaisson Cenci, Daiane Silva Santos Da Cruz, Pedro Dentice Da Silva Leite , Maximiliano Sérgio Cenci , Anelise Fernandes Montagner (Author)
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
The article is distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License. Unless otherwise stated, associated published material is distributed under the same licence.
