Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Show: 20 | 50 | 100
Results 1 - 20 de 537
Filter
1.
Altern Lab Anim ; 50(1): 57-61, 2022 Jan.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35212234

ABSTRACT

Since the inaugural issue of ATLA, many changes within publishing have occurred, impacting when, where, and how researchers conduct literature searches for non-animal alternatives. Such changes include increased rate of growth in scientific publications, greater number of databases and online resources available to search, opportunities for open and almost immediate dissemination of research outputs such as preprints and method protocols, and the development of reporting guidelines for animal research. Here we offer a librarian's perspective on these changes and advice on how to manage them to enable robust and diverse alternatives to be implemented in future research.


Subject(s)
Animal Experimentation , Librarians , Animals , Humans , Publishing
3.
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen ; 142(12)2022 Sep 06.
Article in Norwegian | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36066230
10.
Mol Biol Cell ; 33(12): mbcP22081004, 2022 Oct 01.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36137246
11.
ChemistryOpen ; : e202200150, 2022 Sep 06.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36065951

ABSTRACT

The benefits of publishing research papers first in preprint form are substantial and long-lasting also in chemistry. Recounting the outcomes of our team's nearly six-year journey through preprint publishing, we show evidence that preprinting research substantially benefits both early career and senior researchers in today's highly interdisciplinary chemical research. These findings are of general value, as shown by analyzing the case of four more research teams based in economically developed and developing countries.

12.
Tidsskr Nor Laegeforen ; 142(11)2022 Aug 16.
Article in Norwegian | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35997177

Subject(s)
Publishing , Humans , Norway
18.
20.
PLoS One ; 17(8): e0264661, 2022.
Article in English | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-35947594

ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION: Preprints have been widely cited during the COVID-19 pandemics, even in the major medical journals. However, since subsequent publication of preprint is not always mentioned in preprint repositories, some may be inappropriately cited or quoted. Our objectives were to assess the reliability of preprint citations in articles on COVID-19, to the rate of publication of preprints cited in these articles and to compare, if relevant, the content of the preprints to their published version. METHODS: Articles published on COVID in 2020 in the BMJ, The Lancet, the JAMA and the NEJM were manually screened to identify all articles citing at least one preprint from medRxiv. We searched PubMed, Google and Google Scholar to assess if the preprint had been published in a peer-reviewed journal, and when. Published articles were screened to assess if the title, data or conclusions were identical to the preprint version. RESULTS: Among the 205 research articles on COVID published by the four major medical journals in 2020, 60 (29.3%) cited at least one medRxiv preprint. Among the 182 preprints cited, 124 were published in a peer-reviewed journal, with 51 (41.1%) before the citing article was published online and 73 (58.9%) later. There were differences in the title, the data or the conclusion between the preprint cited and the published version for nearly half of them. MedRxiv did not mentioned the publication for 53 (42.7%) of preprints. CONCLUSIONS: More than a quarter of preprints citations were inappropriate since preprints were in fact already published at the time of publication of the citing article, often with a different content. Authors and editors should check the accuracy of the citations and of the quotations of preprints before publishing manuscripts that cite them.


Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Periodicals as Topic , COVID-19/epidemiology , Humans , Peer Review , PubMed , Reproducibility of Results
SELECTION OF CITATIONS
SEARCH DETAIL
...