Dataset Information

Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic

ABSTRACT: Amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, preprints in the biomedical sciences are being posted and accessed at unprecedented rates, drawing widespread attention from the general public, press, and policymakers for the first time. This phenomenon has sharpened long-standing questions about the reliability of information shared prior to journal peer review. Does the information shared in preprints typically withstand the scrutiny of peer review, or are conclusions likely to change in the version of record? We assessed preprints from bioRxiv and medRxiv that had been posted and subsequently published in a journal through April 30, 2020, representing the initial phase of the pandemic response. We utilised a combination of automatic and manual annotations to quantify how an article changed between the preprinted and published version. We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, the conclusions of 7.2% of non-COVID-19–related and 17.2% of COVID-19–related abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not qualitatively change the conclusions of the paper. During the COVID-19 pandemic, preprints in the biomedical sciences are being posted and accessed at unprecedented rates, but can we trust them? This study reveals that the majority of preprints published within the first 4 months of the pandemic are comparable to their published version.

SUBMITTER: Brierley L

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8806067 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceBecause women remain underrepresented in leadership positions in medicine, including ophthalmology, knowledge of sex composition of ophthalmic journal editorial and professional society boards seems warranted.ObjectivesTo investigate the sex composition of ophthalmic journal editorial and professional society boards and compare the publication productivity and number of citations of male vs female board members.Design, setting, and participantsIn this cross-sectional study, the SCImago Journal Rank indicator was used to identify the 20 highest-ranked ophthalmology journals. Faculty members from each ophthalmic subspecialty were surveyed within a US academic ophthalmology department to identify 15 influential ophthalmology societies. The 2018 board members of each journal and society were identified from the journals' and societies' official websites, and the sex of each individual was recorded. Information regarding journals and societies was collected from October 1 to December 31, 2018. The Scopus database was accessed in January 2019 and then used to find each member's h-index and m-quotient.Main outcomes and measuresThe h-index, defined as the highest number of an author's publications that received at least h number of citations, was calculated for each board member. The m-quotient, which accounts for varying lengths of academic careers, was calculated by dividing the h-index by the number of years since first publication.ResultsOf the 1077 members of ophthalmic journal editorial and society leadership boards, 797 (74.0%) were men and 280 (26.0%) were women. Among the 24 editors in chief of the 20 journals investigated, 23 (95.8%) were male. Thirteen of the 15 professional society presidents (86.7%) were men. Male board members had significantly higher median h-indexes (male vs female journals: 34 [interquartile range {IQR}, 23-47] vs 28 [IQR, 19-40], P < .001; male vs female societies: 27 [IQR, 15-41] vs 17 [IQR, 8-32], P = .006), median publication numbers (male vs female journal board members: 157 [IQR, 88-254] vs 109 [IQR, 66-188], P < .001; male vs female society board members: 109 [IQR, 57-190] vs 58 [IQR, 28-139, P = .001), and median citations (male vs female journal board members: 4027 [IQR, 1897-8005] vs 2871 [IQR, 1344-5852], P < .001; male vs female society board members: 2228 [IQR, 1005-5069] vs 1090 [IQR, 410-2527], P = .003). However, the median m-quotients for male and female board members were comparable (male vs female journal board members: 1.2 [IQR, 0.8-1.6] vs 1.1 [IQR, 0.8-1.5], P = .54; male vs female society board members: 1.0 [IQR, 0.7-1.4] vs 0.9 [IQR, 0.6-1.3], P = .32).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings suggest that the sex composition on journal editorial and professional society boards in ophthalmology is consistent with the sex composition of ophthalmologists in the US, as reported by the Association of American Colleges, but that editor in chief and society president positions are male dominated despite the apparent equality in academic productivity.

Project description:The SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-19) pandemic has been associated with both increased anxiety, deterioration in diet and weight gain. These associations may differ by sex. The present report examines differences by sex in diet quality in order to determine whether associations between diet and psychological stress during the initial phase of the COVID-19 pandemic differed by sex. This online study is available internationally in seven languages. The Mediterranean Diet Score was used to measure diet quality, while the General Anxiety Disorder 7-point scale (GAD-7) was used to measure anxiety. Findings were compared by self-reported sex (male vs. female). A total of 3797 respondents provided informed consent and met eligibility criteria, of whom 526 women were omitted due to being pregnant or six months or less post-partum, or due to reproductive status not being reported. Thus, 3271 individuals are included in the present report, of whom 71.2% were women. The median age of women was 30 (interquartile range (IQR) = 16) years vs. 31 (IQR = 19) years, p = 0.079. The median diet quality score was 9 (IQ = 3) in both women and men (p = 0.75). Despite the overall similarity in diet score, several components of the score differed significantly by sex. Women reported consuming significantly more olive oil, daily servings of vegetables, and weekly servings of sweet baked goods. Men reported consuming significantly more sweetened/carbonated drinks, red meat, alcohol, legumes, and hummus/tahini. Women reported a GAD-7 score of 6 (IQR = 8), while men reported 3 (6), p < 0.001. An inverse association was detected between the Mediterranean diet score and the GAD-7 score in both women (rho = -0.166, p < 0.001) and men (rho = -0.154, p < 0.001), and the correlation coefficients did not differ by sex (p = 0.76). Mediterranean diet score and age both reduced the odds of elevated anxiety (GAD-7 ≥ 10), while female sex, deterioration of diet quality during the outbreak, unemployment, and completing the survey in English increased the odds of this outcome. During the COVID-19 lockdowns, overall diet quality did not differ by sex; however, some differences by sex in components of the total score were detected. Moderate to severe anxiety was positively associated with female sex and poorer diet quality even after controlling for age, employment status, and the language in which the survey was performed.

Dataset Information

Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets