The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review

PLOS ONE · 7 authors, 2 centres

AI SUMMARY

FIDELITY 100%

This summary was generated by AI from a single paper. It has not been reviewed by a clinician and is not clinical advice. Verify against the source before acting on it.

AGENT 01 · STRUCTURED SUMMARY

TRACE TO SOURCE

“

TL;DR

This scoping review mapped the existing evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care research from the perspectives of publishers, funders, and researchers. It found that preprints are generally accepted as a complementary mechanism for rapid dissemination, but clear policies and guidance are needed to manage associated challenges like quality assurance.

Full summary

536 CHARS

This scoping review systematically searched two databases and grey literature from 2017-2022 to map evidence on preprint use and acceptability in health and social care. The review concludes that preprints are not a substitute for peer-reviewed publications but offer value for rapid dissemination. It highlights the need for clear policies from journals, publishers, and funders, and notes limitations such as the review's non-quality assessment nature, potential regional bias, and focused scope on health and social care disciplines.

STUDY TYPE

systematic_review

SPECIALTY

research methods

SUMMARISED BY

AI pipeline

FIDELITY CHECK

100% · A

ORIGINAL PAPER

PMC10503772

The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review

PLOS ONE

READ THE FULL PAPER

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.

CITATION EXPORT

Amanda Jane Blatch-Jones, Alejandra Recio Saucedo, Beth Giddins et al.. The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review. PLOS ONE. (2023). https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291627

AUTHORS

7 · 2 CENTRES

Amanda Jane Blatch-Jones, Alejandra Recio Saucedo, Beth Giddins, Robin Haunschild, Robin Haunschild, Robin Haunschild, Robin Haunschild

National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) Coordinating Centre, School of Healthcare Enterprise and Innovation, University of Southampton, Southampton, Hampshire, United Kingdom
Max Planck Institute for Solid State Research, GERMANY

EDITOR / REVIEWER

Robin Haunschild