Feature

Preprints come to medicine: medRxiv launches with safeguards


 

Road to preprints

BMJ has a history with preprints. The publisher established a preprint server for biomedical research in the late 1990s, but it never took off and was shut down in the early 2000s. “It just didn’t get the uptake,” said Dr. Bloom. “It’s hard to know exactly why.”

John Inglis, PhD, is a cofounder of bioRxiv, the largest preprint server for the biological sciences. Photo by Gina Motisi, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Dr. John Inglis

What is clear, she said, is what has changed in the past 20 years: Copious use of the Internet overall, a growing desire to stake out one’s research turf online, requests from funders to have preprints listed on grant applications, and disease outbreaks involving the Zika virus and Ebola that have highlighted the advantages of faster dissemination of research findings.

BMJ had begun discussions with John Inglis, PhD, of Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory about launching a preprint server for the medical sciences (building on the experience of bioRxiv) when they heard Harlan Krumholz, MD, professor of medicine at Yale and head of the YODA project, speak at the 2017 meeting of the International Congress on Peer Review & Scientific Publication. In his keynote address, Dr. Krumholz described Yale’s plans to launch a preprint server.

Dr. Harlan Krumholz director of Yale New Haven Health System

Dr. Harlan Krumholz

“We all felt it would be better working together than apart,” Dr. Bloom said.

Getting published

Each preprint on medRxiv will get a permanent DOI link and a disclaimer stating that preprints are not peer reviewed, should not be relied on to guide clinical practice, and should not be reported in the news media as established information.

Authors will be required to meet various standards and requirements common in the clinical and medical sciences, such as including details on ethics approvals, patient consent, funding sources and conflicts of interest, and trial registration numbers. They will have the option of adding a revision(s) of their preprint (each preprint will have a “history”), as well as the option of having their preprint marked as “withdrawn” if they can no longer stand by the findings or conclusions. Preprints will automatically be linked to final published papers.

Journals have wrestled with how to handle preprints. A look at several major peer-reviewed journals shows that they’ll consider articles that have appeared in early form as preprints (including the New England Journal of Medicine, according to media relations manager Jennifer Zeis), but there are caveats. JAMA, for instance, will look at whether submitted manuscripts add “meaningfully new” information above what the preprint disseminated.

Similarly, the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) will consider how preprints affect the “novelty” of the manuscript’s findings for its ASCO journal readers. Editors of the journal Blood will consider “public comments or coverage about [the] preprint” in its evaluation of the manuscript’s impact. Several of the major journals specify that preprints cannot be updated while manuscripts are under review.

A recent review of bioRxiv preprints shows that approximately two-thirds went on to peer-reviewed publication.

And according to the BMJ’s Dr. Bloom, “there is definitely evidence that preprints [overall] are getting cited [in the scientific literature] before peer-reviewed articles appear.”

The server medRvix began accepting manuscripts on June 6 and will go live on June 25. It will accept only research papers – not commentaries or case reports, Dr. Ross emphasized.

For now, Dr. Bloom said, the most immediate and “real question for us is, will clinical researchers embrace preprints? And if they do, can we continue to provide a light touch but rapid way to screen papers while ensuring the safety of what we’re posting?”

For his part, Dr. Viny is bracing for “public consumption” of medRxiv content, especially in the oncology community in which patients are often extraordinarily well educated about their disease and determined to learn about all possible treatment options. “My job as a clinician,” he said, “will be to contextualize the patient’s reference information.”

Pages

Recommended Reading

Testifying about the standard of care outside of your specialty
MDedge Neurology
Cannabis: Doctors tell FDA to get out of the weeds
MDedge Neurology
Opposing cost trends seen for prescribed medications
MDedge Neurology
Learning to live with a slow week at the office
MDedge Neurology
Sharing notes with patients improves medication comprehension
MDedge Neurology
Opioid prescriptions declined 33% over 5 years
MDedge Neurology
A large employer ‘frames’ the Medicare-for-all debate
MDedge Neurology
CMS seeks answers on prior authorization, other hassles to eliminate
MDedge Neurology
Balancing privacy, protection in at-risk MS patients
MDedge Neurology
Program meets social needs of 90% of patients
MDedge Neurology