During the spread of Covid-19, preprints, or early versions of articles that have not yet been peer-reviewed and published in scientific journals, were used as an important way to quickly share findings among biomedical researchers. The goal was to quickly share the latest findings that could help curb the disease among researchers. Along with the speed advantage, some scientists were concerned about how to responsibly communicate this yet-to-be-confirmed information to an information-hungry public at the time.
Now, according to Science, two new studies confirm scientists’ concerns about pre-published papers. Many lay news readers do not know the difference between pre-publications (peer-reviewed articles) and approved articles. Even when they are told that the findings come from a pre-published paper, this does not affect their confidence in the validity of the paper’s information. This shows public ignorance about the importance of the peer review process.
The pre-publication article has not been peer-reviewed
Peer review is a scientific process in which research articles are evaluated by experts in the same field before publication. The purpose of this work is to ensure the accuracy, validity and quality of the research. In this process, researchers who were not involved in the study carefully review the article and make suggestions for its correction or approval.
Alice Flairakersone of the authors of the two studies and a social scientist at the University of Amsterdam, emphasizes that the new analysis does not cast doubt on the value of prepublications, as these types of papers remain a popular way for scientists to quickly share results with colleagues before publishing findings in a journal. “A lot of prereleases are good,” he says. “Some of them are arguably better than most journal articles.”
However, as Tobias Wingen“With the increasing importance of prepublications in scientific communication, it is important to know whether non-experts can understand the concept,” notes the social psychologist from Hagen University. Wingen, who has conducted similar research but was not involved in the recent studies, finds the results of Flarakers’ research both interesting and troubling.
In one study, Flirakers and colleagues asked 1,702 American adult participants to read edited versions of real news articles that mirrored the findings of pre-publication studies. For example, one of the articles was about a “Covid-19 hypertransmissible” event. Both revised versions of the original article noted that the study was a pre-publication; But only one of the studies provided a definition of “pre-publication”. A group of respondents read a version containing the pre-release definition and another group read a version without the definition. Both groups were then asked questions about the research, the last question being: “When you see the term ‘pre-publication’ in a scientific news article, what do you interpret it to mean?”
read more
Overall, only about 30 percent of all respondents defined prepublications as consistent with how researchers define them, saying a prepublication is a paper that has not been reviewed by independent experts and is “preliminary” or “uncertain.” For many participants, reading the definition of pre-releases did not seem to help them; Those who read different versions of the article were equally likely to give the wrong definition. But college students had fewer incorrect answers. Misrepresentations included the pre-release being like a “trailer for a movie” or an unedited version of a news article.
In another study, the research team examined whether readers perceived pre-release content as credible. They tested 415 American adults with different versions of a news article about Covid-19 vaccines. The original version stated that the news reflected the findings of a pre-published paper that had not yet been peer-reviewed. Another version made no mention of prerelease, and the third version retained the prerelease description along with stronger, more reassuring language. Then, using a standard scale, the validity of the findings and the reaction of the audience were evaluated.
Pre-releases are a good resource for journalists
The researchers found that simply mentioning that the study was pre-publication had no effect on trust in the findings; The group that was told this trusted the findings just as much as the uninformed group. But the vague and inconclusive language reduced the credibility of the findings. (Conspiracy theories about Covid-19 may have sensitized readers to ambiguous cases.) Separate research also found that providing longer explanations of pre-releases increased skepticism about the validity of the results.
Concerns about pre-releases aren’t always justified, Flairakers says. Studies show that the difference between pre-published and peer-reviewed articles is often subtle, and peer reviews are sometimes biased or superficial. A small but growing movement, especially in the wake of Covid-19, is trying to quickly review pre-releases; Even if they are not published in prestigious journals later. Although most pre-publications are submitted to journals without review or not published at all, some receive useful reviews on pre-publication servers, which are a good resource for journalists.
Flarakers advises that reporters should always clarify the ambiguity of the investigation and the status of its investigation. Transparency can help increase the credibility of scientific news and scientists. However, in 2020, less than half of the news articles on pre-publications of Covid-19 mentioned that they were not refereed or approved. He emphasizes that public awareness about the limitations and benefits of peer review should be increased so that people can make their own decisions about trusting information.
