There are many papers related to Covid-19 on preprint servers. Most of which are not reviewed. This is particularly more so in computational studies such as Virtual screening, docking and molecular dynamics.
What is the general consensus of the scientific community regarding referencing this studies?
I have. Sometimes you have to do it. I recommend my junior fellows to limit this, e.g. not more than 10-15% of the paper references. But also checking even more carefully methods, results, interpretation. During COVID-19 times, this has been necessary for many reasons. Even more, many ID and general journals (including some where I work), are literally collapsed, due to overloaded COVID-19 submissions or by the COVID-19 disruption in normal activities, depending where are based editors and administrative teams/offices. Very complex situation. In addition, all that is not COVID-19, has been relegated to a second plane, not too much important, compared to.
Yes and No.
Yes, if the journal being referred is highly peer reviewed with statistically acceptable sample size are used to validate the findings.
No, if the journal is non Scopus or SCI indexed. Also, the profile and domain expertise of the author also needs to be taken into consideration.
Citing low impact journals to conclude anything related to health related research is very dangerous.
Shahul Hameed That makes no sense since I asked specifically for paper in preprint servers like ChemRxiv, bioRxiv etc. where the papers are not formally peer-reviewed. Being Scopus or sci index has not relevance either since this servers are setup to archive manuscripts before they are published in a indexed journal.
If the study is of good quality, assuming I "good enough" to see if its of good quality, then I would have no problem referring it.
Some editors, however, may disagree.
You have to essentially make your own assessment of the paper, and i fyou are going to reference it in your work, i would mention that it's a preprint stage, not peer reviewed and what you think of its strengths and weaknesses. Pre-print servers are the new frontiers in medicine and something we will all get used to eventually. So yes, go ahead....
Yes, if the paper has been for publication by a certain referred journal
It depends. Peer review is absolutely required for original/technical papers, but less for reviews. In reviews the reference suffice. I wrote this in my review on SARS-CoV and SARS_CoV2:
"Unlike the other coronaviruses, both the SARS-CoV strain of 2003 and SARS-CoV2 (COVID19-virus) do not contain the HE protein [9,10]. Further, a short lysine-rich region (KTFPPTEPKKDKKKKTDEAQ) in the N-protein was reported to be unique to SARS-CoV [10]. Intriguingly, an almost identical sequence (KTFPPTEPKKDKKKKADETQ) is found in the N-protein of SARS-CoV2 [11]. Both characteristics prove that we are dealing with a variant of the same virus of 2003."
Article A SARS-like Coronavirus was Expected, but nothing was done t...
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.internationalscienceediting.com/cite-a-preprint/amp/
https://www.springer.com/gp/open-access/preprint-sharing/16718886
You can use it as guidance but not as reference.
Regards,
Abdul Hadi Al-Qahtani, MD/MHA
I too was writing a paper on a cost-effective IOT based solution for tracking COVID-19 suspected case but cited only 1-2 reprints. In many cases, the published version was already available, just you need to lookout.
Article IoT-Q-Band: A low cost internet of things based wearable ban...
I would certainly cite a pre-print article if on my review I believe that it is a high quality paper.
Seketoulie Keretsu I would cite, if their experiment methods used make sense, and the study comes out from a renown lab or institute.
Yes I would do if its from credible journey and information is really good.
You can, provided you reference it correctly as a preprint. You can follow up with the research before you make your submission for review to know if the preprint has been published.
This will provide more updated information on the study that could be very useful to your study.
I suggest that you approach in the same way as you would a conference paper or a paper you've been asked to referee; with caution. using your own critical skills to assess quality. Alarm bells should ring if there are obvious errors or the results lack face validity. Read everything like you're a referee. I have a pre-print on Covid19 that's already been read 300+ times. It was published as a working paper and went through a light touch peer review but will, no doubt, get tweaked in response to reviewers' comments prior to acceptance in a journa. I wouldn't have shared it as a pre-print if I wasn't certain of it's worth however. I can only assume that most people using Researchgate to disseminate their own work have a modicum of professionalism in the same way that I assume people reading material bring their professional skills to engage with it.
I would cite if it appeals to me. What is a peer review after all? We are the best judge. Often peer review system is overloaded and not necessarily the reviewer is taking the job seriously enough. Just assume you are a reviewer and decide on the preprint..
1. Use only quality preprint servers that have a screening process (medRxiv, bioRxiv, Preprints.org, etc); they ensure that the papers fulfill the basic integrity criteria.
2. Evaluate the paper using the well-known check-lists of EQUATOR Network https://www.equator-network.org/
3. Critically appraise the paper against the relevant domains of bias. You can use tools from Cochrane (RevMan) or JBI (SUMARI) for this purpose.
Yes, it depends primarily on your research skills and your subjective assessment; therefore, if you have a second reviewer (co-author) of your team who can help you with steps 2, 3 - please go for it.
I hope it helps.
Yes, as long as you can assess the quality of the paper yourself and mention that it is a pre-print
Really, dear Collegues, IF preprint server is serious AND IF as commonly is open-(positively or negatively) debating i.e. undergone to (PEER) REVIEW by much more of 2 (sometimes undisclosed) peer-reviewers i.e. all interested scientific community to the matter, WHY NOT?
Mainly in these times of coronavirus in which time from research can be life or better health. Better to read 1 more bad research that to read not a good biomedical intuition or reseach. I and my dear eminent coworkers (from China, Swiss, Italy) along to months ago are following ONLY (for the moment) this approach (and my preprints or editorial/comments are present or incoming in virxra.org , researchgate, bioRxiv* , mdpi -preprint.org etc, sustaining the fractal nature of (form and bio-behavior) of by us thinked a like- quasispecies beta CoV-2 with epidemiologic useful likelyhood trend-curves and clinical-terapeutical useful implications, considering and signaling from march 2020 e.g. by us the role of innate immune system during HYPERINFLAMMATORY STORM (mast cell mainly and possible additional with therapy Na-chromils antidegranulation, anti-COS-LOX and Leukotrienes-receptors blockers montelukat-analogues drugs).
My best very truly.
---
*e.g. my comment to an BEST article of big-data genetists on bioRxiv about 'darwinian' mutation of SARS-CoV-2:
- https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.04.14.040782v2#comment-4908496388
New Results Comments (1)
The global population of SARS-CoV-2 is composed of six major subtypes
by Jvair José Morais Junior ET AL.
"...We hypothesize that the virus subtypes detected in this study are records of the early stages of the SARS-CoV-2 diversification that were randomly sampled to compose the virus populations around the world, a typical founder effect. The genetic structure determined for the SARS-CoV-2 population provides substantial guidelines for maximizing the effectiveness of trials for testing the candidate vaccines or drugs."
...
doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.04.14.040782
-Comment-Calogero Prof. Dr. Rinzivillo-approved by BioRxiv.
Dear Collegues, are you agree with my short definition of SARS-CoV-2 as a near -quasispecies (or quasispecies -like ) for its biological interspecies and intra-human host behavior? This can have some relevant clinical and therapeutic (vaccine, direct antiviral and indirect drugs ) implications. One of these is (at the time little recognized but so relevant) the use of blocker-drugs of (actions and products from) cells of innate immune system, mainly hyperactivated by viral proteins (binding 7alpha-nicotinic, ACE2, CDs and syalised receptors in) mast cells: i.e. Na-chromils and montelukast-analogues anti-leukotrienes and anti-COX-LOX drugs etc. to reduce cytokine storm and bad triad phlogosis-thrombosis-fibrosis (and oedema) in severe CoViD-19 (together with other actual useful therapies). In fact, in these severe stages there is lymphopenia (and super-immune plasma from donors is a therapy) BUT a storm of proteases, pro-coagulative and pro-inflammatory molecules (prostaglandins, leukotriens, interleukins) exist, hence it can due only by innate immune system, mast cell mainly. And recently it has been noted that patient treated for asthma (using corticosteroids, drugs blocking degranulation and leukotriens by mast cells) and smokers (mast cell are rich of 7alpha-nicotinic + ACE2 receptors, ligands for viral proteins and triggering IL-33 allarmins) have lesser incidence of these severe stages if CoViD-19 positives. Many thanks, my congratulations for your so useful paper and my best very truly. [email protected] Edit ACE2 receptors and nicotinic are rich in testis also, this can explain higher incidence in male patients (except smokers).
Submission Open for Special Issue: What’s’ Novel About Corona? (IGJPS-2020-SI-02)
http://www.iglobaljournal.com/submission-open-for-special-issue-whats-novel-about-corona-igjps-2020-si-02/
I have. Sometimes you have to do it. I recommend my junior fellows to limit this, e.g. not more than 10-15% of the paper references. But also checking even more carefully methods, results, interpretation. During COVID-19 times, this has been necessary for many reasons. Even more, many ID and general journals (including some where I work), are literally collapsed, due to overloaded COVID-19 submissions or by the COVID-19 disruption in normal activities, depending where are based editors and administrative teams/offices. Very complex situation. In addition, all that is not COVID-19, has been relegated to a second plane, not too much important, compared to.
Rajeev K Singla please do not advertise yourself on my page. The journal you suggested looks like a predatory journal.
Seketoulie Keretsu I have posted the information here because the discussion was around COVID-19 papers. Sorry for using your question page as platform to disseminate the information. Further, Indo Global Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences is a well recognized journal with a strong editorial board and proper peer review process. Publons (Clarivate Analytics) recognized it well https://publons.com/journal/43304/indo-global-journal-of-pharmaceutical-sciences . Thus, it is not at all a predatory journal.
that preprints play a central role in COVID-19 response is a reality, whether we like it or not- there are presently over 200 preprints on psyarxiv on the topic of C-19 totalling tens of thousands of downloads.
links to discussion of whether this is beneficial or not can also be found here:
https://www.reddit.com/r/BehSciMeta/comments/fqqxkd/the_covid19_crisis_amplifies_some_points_raised/
Article Classification of COVID-19 patients from chest CT images usi...
Yes I would. First because peer papers/journals are overwhelmed, and second, just because it’s not accepted doesn’t mean its not useful research.
The peer review process tends to be too slow for emergency situations. Even if not perfect, preprints may contain new / provocative hypotheses that could potentially be game changers. Furthermore there may particular data , for example possible targets or targeting ligands suggested by In Silico work that may allow those who are well set up , perhaps by accident, even, to test them. Hence I think it's not a bad thing.
The paper if reviewed and accepted for publication can be referenced.
That preprints play a central role in COVID-19 response is a reality, whether we like it or not. I would share them, but with caution, always reviewing each one beforehand as if I were doing a peer review.
Does Peer Review Still Matter in the Era of COVID-19?
— Milton Packer describes the impossible task of vetting medical research
https://www.medpagetoday.com/blogs/revolutionandrevelation/86465
I think it is fine. Indeed WHO encouraged the publication of preprints to accelerate research. Yet, I recommend you to double check the findings by reading as many related sources as possible.
Any preprints accepted for publication in high impact journals NEJM, JAMA, Lancet, Nature, BMJ, and affiliated with speciality associations) are worth citing because they have succinct and critical initial review before accepting a manuscript for publication.
Pre-print servers are not peer-reviewed. I would recommend not to cite them unless absolutely necessary as there is a possibility of spread of wrong message- PRIMUM NON-NOCERE
Well, most of the papers related to Covid 19 are not peer reviewed. This is due to insufficient literature to carry out a review, and also, due to time constraints. It doesn't mean that such papers or preliminary observations are non-citable. One should always cite even pre-print papers, to spread visibility, and allow more work to be done in that particular area.
Pre-print servers are not peer-reviewed. They could be accepted but also rejected. Remain cautious and cite if it is absolutely necessary and You are sure that cited paper will be published. Add information that that paper is not yet peer-reviewed.
Dear dear Seketoulie Keretsu , I would share it contextualizing that it is just an approach. Three or four months is not enough for high-quality research
The pandemic has accelerated research and the production of knowledge. In the face of uncertainty, creative and supportive responses are needed. I would quote collaborative works
see discussion of the issue in this blog post from the Psychonomic Society's Digital Event on Science In Crisis:
https://featuredcontent.psychonomic.org/as-new-venues-for-peer-review-flower-will-journals-catch-up/
Dear, Ulrike Hahn thank you very much for sharing the blog, this discussion about delays in editorial processes and the need for collaborative exercises in peer review are important, however the discussion is if you would quote a preprint how do you know if the text is from quality?
Citing text awaiting publication as so-called preprint carries the risk of having to later introduce errata into the text, if it turns out that the preprint planned in a specific publication of the monograph, scientific journal or other type of scientific work to be published has not been published as planned. Citing text awaiting publication as so-called preprint makes sense if it was known whether the planned process of publishing a specific scientific work would be fully implemented in accordance with the original plan.
Greetings,
Dariusz Prokopowicz
Seketoulie, I think this a word of caution is in place here given the fact that the final fate of the paper might still be undecided. Generally, the practice of citing a paper is done when the paper/article has actually been published or has been accepted for imminent publication.
In this regard, there are some reviewer spaces such as Publons, where the members themselves can review many documents that are awaiting a review in order to endorse the information more quickly. of view of those papers waiting for a certified review and clarivate analytics publons provides that option
As of now, yes we can cite preprints since there is no enough peer-reviewed literature resources.
Dear Mr. Keretsu!
One can cite a publication that is at the preprint-stage: it is important to know " whether or not it is allowed and what policies journals have in relation to citing preprints". Reference::
1) Lisa Clancy (2019). "Can I cite preprint?" October 9, 2019, COPYRIGHT © 2020 · INTERNATIONAL SCIENCE EDITING, Available at:
https://www.internationalscienceediting.com/cite-a-preprint/
2) Case study1.: Darwin Y Fu, & Jacob J Hughey (2019). "Meta-Research: Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the peer-reviewed article" Vanderbilt University Medical Center, United States, December 6, 2019, Citation: "This observational study can help researchers and publishers make informed decisions about how to incorporate preprints into their work.", © 2020 eLife Sciences Publications Ltd., Available at:
https://elifesciences.org/articles/52646
3) Case study 2.: UCL Institute of Education Library (2020). "Referencing with Harvard: Journal article (pre-published)" June 4, 2020, Library and Archives, UCL Institute of Education LibGuides, Available at:
https://libguides.ioe.ac.uk/c.php?g=482485&p=3299801
Yours sincerely, Bulcsu Szekely
It is acceptable to cite the preprint just make sure you cross check again before your article is published. I saw a preprint on Lancet but when I re-checked online to update my references some days after, the same article was published by another journal.
Remember research is dynamic!
We have an article in preprint (see the ResearchGate group) which has just been refused publication for not being in line with the themes of the journal.
I wanted to submit it to another newspaper but this last replied that the article is already published.
What should I do?
What should I do?
Yes, the preprint articles can be cited especially now when in the midst of the COVID19 epidemic. Caution should be taken however to scrutinize the sources of the preprints. Remember even published articles are withdrawn if unethical practices are identified in the way the research was done.
Seketoulie Keretsu , publishing in a journal takes months, and even years. I believe pre-print is then helpful to disseminate articles that are relevant NOW. For example, we have a pre-print in medRxiv about humidity levels and COVID-19 transmission:
Preprint Environmental risk factors of airborne viral transmission: H...
I would never quote unreviewed papers. I understand the anxiety derived of lack of knowledge on Covid19 and the need of sharing experiences during the pandemy but many, many low quality studies have ben published, even in high impact journals. Concusions are not solid and this creates noise and confusion.
These papers transiently relieve anxiety, and provide the feeling that we are doing something useful to the patients and fighting Covid19 but this is delusion or dream that will fade when more solid data appear. The story of hydroxychloroquine is quite an example. Non-reviewed papers do not even have the minimum quality control derived from peer review.
Preprints are drafts of academic articles that have not been formally published, i.e., they have not been peer-reviewed. I would never cite unreviewed papers.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Papers