Open access Original research BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041849 on 29 December 2020. Downloaded from Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting Jamie J Kirkham ,1 Naomi C Penfold ,2 Fiona Murphy,3 Isabelle Boutron,4 John P Ioannidis,5 Jessica Polka,2 David Moher 6 To cite: Kirkham JJ, ABSTRACT Strengths and limitations of this study Penfold NC, Murphy F, et al. Objectives The objective of this review is to identify all Systematic examination of preprint platforms with biomedical and medical scope ► We developed robust methodology for systemat- preprint platforms for use in and to compare and contrast the key characteristics and the medical and biomedical ically identifying relevant preprint platforms and policies of these platforms. sciences setting. BMJ Open involved platform owners/representatives wherever Study design and setting Preprint platforms that were 2020;10:e041849. doi:10.1136/ possible to verify data. launched up to 25 June 2019 and have a biomedical and bmjopen-2020-041849 ► We undertook an internal pilot of developing and medical scope according to MEDLINE’s journal selection testing out the data collection form in collaboration ► Prepublication history and criteria were identified using existing lists, web- based with a preprint platform owner and funders. supplemental material for this searches and the expertise of both academic and non- paper is available online. To ► For platforms that had a partner journal and without academic publication scientists. A data extraction form view these files, please visit verification, it was sometimes unclear if the policy was developed, pilot tested and used to collect data from the journal online (http:// dx. doi. information related to the journal, preprint platform each preprint platform’s webpage(s). org/ 10. 1136/ bmjopen- 2020- or both. 041849). Results A total of 44 preprint platforms were identified ► We provide a searchable database as a valuable re- as having biomedical and medical scope, 17 (39%) source for researchers, funders and policy-makers Received 18 June 2020 were hosted by the Open Science Framework preprint in the biomedical and medical science field to deter- Revised 27 August 2020 infrastructure, 6 (14%) were provided by F1000 Research mine which preprint platforms are relevant to their Accepted 18 September 2020 (the Open Research Central infrastructure) and 21 (48%) research scope and which have the functionality and were other independent preprint platforms. Preprint policies that they value most. platforms were either owned by non- profit academic ► We plan to update this searchable database period- groups, scientific societies or funding organisations (n=28; ically to include any new relevant preprint platforms http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ 64%), owned/partly owned by for- profit publishers or and to amend any changes in policy. 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 to ‘claim’ priority of discovery of a research source, geographical region or an affiliated journal’s remit. finding; this can be particularly useful for Thirty- three (75%) preprint platforms provided details early- career researchers in a highly compet- about article screening (basic checks) and 14 (32%) of itive research environment. Some preprint these actively involved researchers with context expertise platforms provide digital object identifier on September 24, 2021 by guest. Protected copyright. in the screening process. Almost all preprint platforms (DOIs) for each included manuscript. This allow submission to any peer-reviewed journal following information can be included in grant appli- publication, have a preservation plan for read access and cations. Indeed, progressive granting agen- most have a policy regarding reasons for retraction and cies are recommending applicants include the sustainability of the service. preprints in their applications (eg, National Conclusion A large number of preprint platforms exist 1 for use in biomedical and medical sciences, all of which Institutes of Health (NIH, USA) and in the offer researchers an opportunity to rapidly disseminate UK, preprints are becoming recognised as their research findings onto an open- access public server, eligible outputs in the Research Excellence © Author(s) (or their subject to scope and eligibility. Framework exercise which assesses institu- employer(s)) 2020. Re- use 2 permitted under CC BY. tional research performance. Published by BMJ. Preprints have been widely used in the phys- For numbered affiliations see INTRODUCTION ical sciences since the early 1990s, and with end of article. A preprint is an non- peer- reviewed scientific the creation of the repository of electronic manuscript that authors can upload to a public articles, arXiv, over 1.6 million preprints or Correspondence to Professor Jamie J Kirkham; preprint platform and make available almost accepted/published manuscripts have been 3 jamie. kirkham@ manchester. immediately without formal external peer deposited on this platform alone. Since ac. uk review. Posting a preprint enables researchers September 2003, arXiv has supported the Kirkham JJ, et al. BMJ Open 2020;10:e041849. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041849 1 Open access BMJ Open: first published as 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-041849 on 29 December 2020. Downloaded from sharing of quantitative biology preprints under the q-bio METHODS category. The use of preprints in biomedical sciences Preprint platform identification is increasing, leading to the formation of the scientist- A preliminary list of potentially relevant preprint plat- driven initiative Accelerating Science and Publication forms was identified using Martyn Rittman’s original list12 in biology (ASAPbio) to promote their use.4 A preprint and extended using a basic Google web search using the platform dedicated to life science-related research search term ‘preprint’ and the knowledge of the Steering (bioRxiv) founded in 2013 has already attracted nearly Group (study authors). Additional preprint platforms 80 000 preprints.5 This platform was set up to capture that were launched up to 25 June 2019 were included. science manuscripts from all areas of biology, however, medRxiv was launched in June 2019 to provide a dedi- Preprint platform selection cated platform and processes for preprints in medicine We included any preprint platform that has biomedical or and health related sciences6 and it already hosts over medical scope according to MEDLINE’s journal selection 3400 preprints, becoming particularly popular with criteria.13 Generally this covers: ‘(manuscripts) predom- COVID-19. The Center for Open Science (COS)7 has inantly devoted to reporting original investigations in also developed web infrastructure for these new ‘Rxiv’ the biomedical and health sciences, including research (pronounced ‘archive’) services,8 while F1000 Research in the basic sciences; clinical trials of therapeutic agents; has provided instances of its postpublication peer review effectiveness of diagnostic or therapeutic techniques; or and publishing platform for use by several funders (eg, studies relating to the behavioural, epidemiological or Wellcome Trust) and research institutions to encourage educational aspects of medicine.’ preprint- first research publishing.9 Recently, several large We aimed to be overinclusive such that preprint plat- publishers (Springer Nature, Wiley, Elsevier) have devel- forms that hosted work within the above MEDLINE oped, codeveloped or acquired preprint platforms or definition of scope among a broader scope (such as ‘all services, and in April 2020, SciELO launched a preprint physical, chemical and life sciences’) were included. For platform that works with Open Journal Systems.10 Many inclusion, the platforms primary focus needed to act as other preprint platforms also support dissemination of a preprint platform rather than a more general reposi- biomedical and medical sciences within their broader tory where preprints might be incidentally deposited. multidisciplinary platforms. Platforms were included without any language restric- Given the increase in the use and profile of preprint tions on the content accepted for posting. Eligibility of platforms, it is increasingly important to identify how preprint platforms was arrived at in discussion with two many such platforms exist and to understand how they authors (JJK and NCP) and independently approved by operate in relation to policies and practices important the Steering Group. Preprint platforms were excluded for for dissemination. With this aim in mind, we conduct a any of the following reasons: they were no longer active review to identify all preprint platforms that have biomed- (as of 25 June 2019); they were print only or had no web- http://bmjopen.bmj.com/ ical and medical science scope and contrast them in terms presence (‘offline’); their primary function was classed as of their unique characteristics (eg, scope of the preprint, a general purpose repository with no exclusive preprint preprint ownership) and policies (eg, administrative functionality. We also excluded service platforms that checking, copyright and licensing). We also provide a only host postprints (after peer review), such as Science searchable repository of the platforms identified so that magazine’s ‘first release’. researchers, funders