Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review is to identify all preprint platforms with biomedical and medical scope and to compare and contrast the key characteristics and policies of these platforms. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Preprint platforms that were launched up to 25 June 2019 and have a biomedical and medical scope according to MEDLINE's journal selection criteria were identified using existing lists, web-based searches and the expertise of both academic and non-academic publication scientists. A data extraction form was developed, pilot tested and used to collect data from each preprint platform's webpage(s). RESULTS: A total of 44 preprint platforms were identified as having biomedical and medical scope, 17 (39%) were hosted by the Open Science Framework preprint infrastructure, 6 (14%) were provided by F1000 Research (the Open Research Central infrastructure) and 21 (48%) were other independent preprint platforms. Preprint platforms were either owned by non-profit academic groups, scientific societies or funding organisations (n=28; 64%), owned/partly owned by for-profit publishers or 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 source, geographical region or an affiliated journal's remit. Thirty-three (75%) preprint platforms provided details about article screening (basic checks) and 14 (32%) of these actively involved researchers with context expertise in the screening process. Almost all preprint platforms allow submission to any peer-reviewed journal following publication, have a preservation plan for read access and most have a policy regarding reasons for retraction and the sustainability of the service. CONCLUSION: A large number of preprint platforms exist for use in biomedical and medical sciences, all of which offer researchers an opportunity to rapidly disseminate their research findings onto an open-access public server, subject to scope and eligibility.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Almost all journals are supportive of preprinting trial protocols and completed studies before formal journal submission.
“Almost all journals are supportive of preprinting trial protocols and completed studies128 before formal journal submission.129 130 131”
From SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials (2025) · cites this paper as [130]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Editorial peer review for improving the quality of reports of biomedical studies
Jefferson, T., Rudin, M., Brodney Folse, S., & Davidoff, F. (2007) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000016.pub3 · Cited by 312 · see citing works
Kovanis, M., Porcher, R., Ravaud, P., & Trinquart, L. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0166387 · Cited by 246 · see citing works
Bruce, R., Chauvin, A., Trinquart, L., Ravaud, P., & Boutron, I. (2016) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-016-0631-5 · Cited by 218 · see citing works
Self-citationCarneiro, C. F. D., Queiroz, V. G. S., Moulin, T. C., Carvalho, C. A. M., Haas, C. B., Rayêe, D., Henshall, D. E., De-Souza, E. A., Amorim, F. E., Boos, F. Z., et al. (2020) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-020-00101-3 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Stansfield, C., Dickson, K., & Bangpan, M. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0371-9 · Cited by 122 · see citing works
Hopewell, S., Collins, G. S., Boutron, I., Yu, L.-M., Cook, J., Shanyinde, M., Wharton, R., Shamseer, L., & Altman, D. G. (2014) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g4145 · Cited by 103 · cited 1× · see citing works
“23 24 This review provides some justification that preprint platforms might be a reasonable option for researchers, especially given the time spent and associated cost of peer review.”
Self-citationKirkham, J. J., & Moher, D. (2018) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.15436.1 · Cited by 34 · see citing works
Self-citationBiomedical Journals and Preprint Services: Friends or Foes?
Annesley, T. M., Scott, M. G., Bastian, H., et al. (2016) · Clinical Chemistry · doi:10.1373/clinchem.2016.268227 · Cited by 20 · see citing works
Should there be greater use of preprint servers for publishing reports of biomedical science?
Chalmers, I., & Glasziou, P. (2016) · F1000Research · doi:10.12688/f1000research.8229.1 · Cited by 15 · see citing works
NIH enables investigators to include draft preprints in grant proposals
Kaiser, J. (2017) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.aal0961 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 12
- [3]arXiv [online]. Available: https://arxiv.org/ [Accessed 8 Apr 2020].
- [4]ASAPbio [online]. Available: http://asapbio.org/preprint-info [Accessed 8 Apr 2020].
- [5]bioRxiv [online]. Available: https://www.biorxiv.org/ [Accessed 20 Apr 2020].
- [6]medRxiv [online]. Available: https://www.medrxiv.org/ [Accessed 21 Apr 2020].
- [8]INLEXIO: The rising tide of preprint servers [online]. Available: https://www.inlexio.com/rising-tide-preprint-servers/ [Accessed 8 Apr 2020].
- [9]F1000 Research Ltd [online]. Available: https://f1000research.com/ [Accessed 8 Apr 2020].
- [10]SciELO Preprints [online]. Available: https://preprints.scielo.org/index.php/scielo [Accessed 8 Apr 2020].
- [14]Zenodo: Practices and policies of preprint platforms for life and biomedical sciences [online]. Available: https://zenodo.org/record/3700874 [Accessed 8 Apr 2020].
- [17]Cambridge open engage [online]. Available: https://www.cambridge.org/engage/coe/public-dashboard [Accessed 8 Apr 2020].
- [32]Living mapping and living systematic review of Covid-19 studies [online]. Available: https://covid-nma.com/ [Accessed 14 Apr 2020].
- [33]ASAPbio: Biology preprints over time [online]. Available: https://asapbio.org/preprint-info/biology-preprints-over-time [Accessed 13 Feb 2020].
- [35]Review COMMONS [online]. Available: https://www.reviewcommons.org/ [Accessed 14 Apr 2020].
Cited by
Sorted by citations
SPIRIT 2025 explanation and elaboration: updated guideline for protocols of randomised trials
Hróbjartsson, A., Boutron, I., Hopewell, S., Moher, D., Schulz, K. F., Collins, G. S., Tunn, R., Aggarwal, R., Berkwits, M., Berlin, J. A., et al. (2025) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-081660 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Self-citationthe COVID-19 NMA Consortium, Oikonomidi, T., Boutron, I., Pierre, O., Cabanac, G., & Ravaud, P. (2020) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-020-01880-8 · Cited by 54 · see citing works
Self-citationBero, L., Lawrence, R., Leslie, L., Chiu, K., McDonald, S., Page, M. J., Grundy, Q., Parker, L., Boughton, S., Kirkham, J. J., et al. (2021) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2021-051821 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Self-citationTransparency in clinical trials: Adding value to paediatric dental research
Cenci, M. S., Franco, M. C., Raggio, D. P., Moher, D., & Pereira‐Cenci, T. (2020) · International Journal of Paediatric Dentistry · doi:10.1111/ipd.12769 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Self-citationTransparency and reporting characteristics of COVID-19 randomized controlled trials
Kapp, P., Esmail, L., Ghosn, L., Ravaud, P., & Boutron, I. (2022) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-022-02567-y · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Self-citationDavidson, M., Evrenoglou, T., Graña, C., Chaimani, A., & Boutron, I. (2024) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-023-02136-8 · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Self-citationDavidson, M., Evrenoglou, T., Graña, C., Chaimani, A., & Boutron, I. (2023) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.08.011 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Kirkham, J. J., Penfold, N. C., Murphy, F., Boutron, I., Ioannidis, J. P., Polka, J., & Moher, D.
- Affiliations
- Manchester Academic Health Science Centre (GB)
- ASAPbio (US)
- Murphy Mitchell Consulting Ltd, Chichester, UK
- Université Paris Cité (FR)
- Stanford Medicine (US)
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- ORCID
- Venue
- BMJ Open
- Publisher
- BMJ
- Published
- 2020-12
- Volume
- 10
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- e041849
- ISSN
- 2044-6055 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7778769
- OpenAlex
- W3113511995
- Cited by
- 112
- References
- 10
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 18 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 11 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 3.70
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- BMJ Open (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- HighWire Press Open Archive (acceptedVersion)
- Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- HAL (submittedVersion, cc-by)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Medical Research Council (N/A)
- Wellcome Trust (N/A)
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (N/A)
- Chan Zuckerberg Initiative (N/A)
- Howard Hughes Medical Institute (N/A)
- Simons Foundation (N/A)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Keywords
- preprint servers, preprints, biomedical sciences, medical sciences, platform ownership, article screening, retraction policy, research preservation, Open Science Framework, scholarly communication, open access
- MeSH terms
- Humans, Peer Review, Research Personnel, Societies, Scientific, Biomedical Research
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
