The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review
The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review
Background Preprints are open and accessible scientific manuscript or report that is shared publicly, through a preprint server, before being submitted to a journal. The value and importance of preprints has grown since its contribution during the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders and publishers are establishing their position on the use of preprints, in grant applications and publishing models. However, the evidence supporting the use and acceptability of preprints varies across funders, publishers, and researchers. The scoping review explored the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research lifecycle. Methods A scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017–2022) to capture changes influenced by COVID-19 (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature, and two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science (24 August 2022). Results 379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publications, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility, and validation). For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/ transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities). Conclusions Preprints provide opportunities for rapid dissemination but there is a need for clear policies and guidance from journals, publishers, and funders. Cautionary measures are needed to maintain the quality and value of preprints, paying particular attention to how findings are translated to the public. More research is needed to address some of the uncertainties addressed in this review.
Blatch-Jones, Amanda Jane
6bb7aa9c-776b-4bdd-be4e-cf67abd05652
Recio Saucedo, Alejandra
d05c4e43-3399-466d-99e0-01403a04b467
Giddins, Beth
236401d4-1caa-4bda-b360-e7ab0b05d936
15 September 2023
Blatch-Jones, Amanda Jane
6bb7aa9c-776b-4bdd-be4e-cf67abd05652
Recio Saucedo, Alejandra
d05c4e43-3399-466d-99e0-01403a04b467
Giddins, Beth
236401d4-1caa-4bda-b360-e7ab0b05d936
Blatch-Jones, Amanda Jane, Recio Saucedo, Alejandra and Giddins, Beth
(2023)
The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review.
PLoS ONE, 18 (9 September), [e0291627].
(doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0291627).
Abstract
Background Preprints are open and accessible scientific manuscript or report that is shared publicly, through a preprint server, before being submitted to a journal. The value and importance of preprints has grown since its contribution during the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders and publishers are establishing their position on the use of preprints, in grant applications and publishing models. However, the evidence supporting the use and acceptability of preprints varies across funders, publishers, and researchers. The scoping review explored the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research lifecycle. Methods A scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017–2022) to capture changes influenced by COVID-19 (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature, and two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science (24 August 2022). Results 379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publications, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility, and validation). For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/ transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities). Conclusions Preprints provide opportunities for rapid dissemination but there is a need for clear policies and guidance from journals, publishers, and funders. Cautionary measures are needed to maintain the quality and value of preprints, paying particular attention to how findings are translated to the public. More research is needed to address some of the uncertainties addressed in this review.
Text
Preprints manuscript version 0.3_resubmission (1)
- Author's Original
Text
journal.pone.0291627
- Version of Record
More information
e-pub ahead of print date: 12 April 2023
Published date: 15 September 2023
Additional Information:
Copyright: © 2023 Blatch-Jones et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Identifiers
Local EPrints ID: 480386
URI: http://eprints.soton.ac.uk/id/eprint/480386
ISSN: 1932-6203
PURE UUID: c14c22b7-1c7a-4677-9246-9802c52cd21f
Catalogue record
Date deposited: 01 Aug 2023 20:32
Last modified: 18 Mar 2024 03:16
Export record
Altmetrics
Contributors
Author:
Beth Giddins
Download statistics
Downloads from ePrints over the past year. Other digital versions may also be available to download e.g. from the publisher's website.
View more statistics