Dataset Information

Who and why do researchers opt to publish in post-publication peer review platforms? - findings from a review and survey of F1000 Research.

ABSTRACT: Background: Preprint servers and alternative publication platforms enable authors to accelerate the dissemination of their research. In recent years there has been an exponential increase in the use of such servers and platforms in the biomedical sciences, although little is known about who, why and what experiences researchers have with publishing on such platforms. In this article we explore one of these alternative publication platforms, F1000 Research, which offers immediate publication followed by post-publication peer review. Methods: From an unselected cohort of articles published between 13 th July 2012 and 30 th November 2017 in F1000 Research, we provided a summary of who and what was published on this platform and calculated the percentage of published articles that had been indexed on a bibliographic database ( PubMed) following successful post-publication peer review. We also surveyed corresponding authors to further understand the rationale and experiences of those that have published using this platform. Results: A total of 1865 articles had been published in the study cohort period, of which 80% (n=1488) had successfully undergone peer review and were indexed on PubMed within a minimum period of six months since first publication. Nearly three-quarters of articles passed the peer review process with their initial submission. Survey responses were received from 296 corresponding authors. Open access, open peer review and the speed of publication were the three main reasons why authors opted to publish with F1000 Research. Conclusions: Many who published with F1000 Research had a positive experience and indicated that they would publish again with this same platform in the future. Nevertheless, there remained some concerns about the peer review process and the quality of the articles that were published.

SUBMITTER: Kirkham J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6053701 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:If a doctoral dissertation represents an original investigation that makes a contribution to one's field, then dissertation research could, and arguably should, be disseminated into the scientific literature. However, the extent and nature of dissertation publication remains largely unknown within psychology. The present study investigated the peer-reviewed publication outcomes of psychology dissertation research in the United States. Additionally, we examined publication lag, scientific impact, and variations across subfields. To investigate these questions, we first drew a stratified random cohort sample of 910 psychology Ph.D. dissertations from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses. Next, we conducted comprehensive literature searches for peer-reviewed journal articles derived from these dissertations published 0-7 years thereafter. Published dissertation articles were coded for their bibliographic details, citation rates, and journal impact metrics. Results showed that only one-quarter (25.6% [95% CI: 23.0, 28.4]) of dissertations were ultimately published in peer-reviewed journals, with significant variations across subfields (range: 10.1 to 59.4%). Rates of dissertation publication were lower in professional/applied subfields (e.g., clinical, counseling) compared to research/academic subfields (e.g., experimental, cognitive). When dissertations were published, however, they often appeared in influential journals (e.g., Thomson Reuters Impact Factor M = 2.84 [2.45, 3.23], 5-year Impact Factor M = 3.49 [3.07, 3.90]) and were cited numerous times (Web of Science citations per year M = 3.65 [2.88, 4.42]). Publication typically occurred within 2-3 years after the dissertation year. Overall, these results indicate that the large majority of Ph.D. dissertation research in psychology does not get disseminated into the peer-reviewed literature. The non-publication of dissertation research appears to be a systemic problem affecting both research and training in psychology. Efforts to improve the quality and "publishability" of doctoral dissertation research could benefit psychological science on multiple fronts.

Project description:BackgroundAddressing deficiencies in the dissemination and transfer of research-based knowledge into routine clinical practice is high on the policy agenda both in the UK and internationally.However, there is lack of clarity between funding agencies as to what represents dissemination. Moreover, the expectations and guidance provided to researchers vary from one agency to another. Against this background, we performed a systematic scoping to identify and describe any conceptual/organising frameworks that could be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activity.MethodsWe searched twelve electronic databases (including MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO), the reference lists of included studies and of individual funding agency websites to identify potential studies for inclusion. To be included, papers had to present an explicit framework or plan either designed for use by researchers or that could be used to guide dissemination activity. Papers which mentioned dissemination (but did not provide any detail) in the context of a wider knowledge translation framework, were excluded. References were screened independently by at least two reviewers; disagreements were resolved by discussion. For each included paper, the source, the date of publication, a description of the main elements of the framework, and whether there was any implicit/explicit reference to theory were extracted. A narrative synthesis was undertaken.ResultsThirty-three frameworks met our inclusion criteria, 20 of which were designed to be used by researchers to guide their dissemination activities. Twenty-eight included frameworks were underpinned at least in part by one or more of three different theoretical approaches, namely persuasive communication, diffusion of innovations theory, and social marketing.ConclusionsThere are currently a number of theoretically-informed frameworks available to researchers that can be used to help guide their dissemination planning and activity. Given the current emphasis on enhancing the uptake of knowledge about the effects of interventions into routine practice, funders could consider encouraging researchers to adopt a theoretically-informed approach to their research dissemination.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of pre-clinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical care. Publication bias is one of the major threats of validity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Previous empirical studies suggested that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become more prevalent until 2010 and found evidence for compromised methodological rigor with a trend towards improvement. We aim to comprehensively summarize and update the evidence base on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies, their methodological quality and assessment of publication bias in particular.Methods/designThe objectives of this systematic review are as follows: •To investigate the epidemiology of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present. •To examine methodological features of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies with special attention to the assessment of publication bias. •To investigate the influence of systematic reviews of animal studies on clinical research by examining citations of the systematic reviews by clinical studies. Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews and meta-analyses that summarize in vivo animal experiments with the purpose of reviewing animal evidence to inform human health. We will exclude genome-wide association studies and animal experiments with the main purpose to learn more about fundamental biology, physical functioning or behavior. In addition to the inclusion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified by other empirical studies, we will systematically search Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 2009 to January 2013 for further eligible studies without language restrictions. Two reviewers working independently will assess titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extract relevant data from included studies. Data reporting will involve a descriptive summary of meta-analyses and systematic reviews.DiscussionResults are expected to be publicly available later in 2013 and may form the basis for recommendations to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies and their use with respect to clinical care.

Project description:ObjectivesPublication bias, non-publication, and selective reporting of animal studies limit progress toward the 3Rs (Replacement, Reduction, and Refinement) that guide ethical animal testing, waste public resources, and result in redundant research, which collectively undermine the public's trust in scientific reliability. In this study, we aimed to 1) validate findings from a previous follow-up study by our team that examined the publication rates of animal studies from protocol to publication and 2) identify incentives for improving publication rates in animal research.MethodsThe researchers responsible for the animal proposals (n = 210) from our previous study were contacted as participants for a Web-based survey between October 2019 and April 2020. Question types varied between free text questions, answer options based on a 5-point Likert scale and closed yes/no questions.ResultsIn total, 78 researchers responsible for 101 of 210 animal study proposals participated, yielding a response rate of 48.1%. Results showed that the publication rate increased from 67% in our follow-up study to 70%. According to a 5-point Likert scale (from 1 = "not relevant" to 5 = "extremely relevant"), the most widely accepted suggestions for increasing publication rates were "Publication costs for open access journals are fully covered by funders or universities" (mean 4.02, SD 1.01), "Performance-based allocation of intramural funds for results reporting of animal research not supporting the initial hypothesis (including preprints and repositories)" (mean 3.37, SD 1.05), and "Researchers receive more information from scientific journals that also publish non-significant results" (mean 3.30, SD 1.02).ConclusionWhile the extent of publication and publication practices have been thoroughly investigated for clinical trials, less data is available for animal research to date. Therefore, the study contributes in complementing the picture of publication practice in animal research. Suggestions from our survey may help improve the publication rates of animal studies.

Project description:BackgroundThe Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) is obligated to peer review and to post publicly "Final Research Reports" of all funded projects. PCORI peer review emphasizes adherence to PCORI's Methodology Standards and principles of ethical scientific communication. During the peer review process, reviewers and editors seek to ensure that results are presented objectively and interpreted appropriately, e.g., free of spin.MethodsTwo independent raters assessed PCORI peer review feedback sent to authors. We calculated the proportion of reports in which spin was identified during peer review, and the types of spin identified. We included reports submitted by April 2018 with at least one associated journal article. The same raters then assessed whether authors addressed reviewers' comments about spin. The raters also assessed whether spin identified during PCORI peer review was present in related journal articles.ResultsWe included 64 PCORI-funded projects. Peer reviewers or editors identified spin in 55/64 (86%) submitted research reports. Types of spin included reporting bias (46/55; 84%), inappropriate interpretation (40/55; 73%), inappropriate extrapolation of results (15/55; 27%), and inappropriate attribution of causality (5/55; 9%). Authors addressed comments about spin related to 47/55 (85%) of the reports. Of 110 associated journal articles, PCORI comments about spin were potentially applicable to 44/110 (40%) articles, of which 27/44 (61%) contained the same spin that was identified in the PCORI research report. The proportion of articles with spin was similar for articles accepted before and after PCORI peer review (63% vs 58%).DiscussionJust as spin is common in journal articles and press releases, we found that most reports submitted to PCORI included spin. While most spin was mitigated during the funder's peer review process, we found no evidence that review of PCORI reports influenced spin in journal articles. Funders could explore interventions aimed at reducing spin in published articles of studies they support.

Dataset Information

Who and why do researchers opt to publish in post-publication peer review platforms? - findings from a review and survey of F1000 Research.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets