FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W3042679173> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W3042679173 endingPage "2187" @default.
• W3042679173 startingPage "2186" @default.
• W3042679173 abstract "To the Editor, In a 2019 Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research® (CORR) editorial, the Editors-in-Chief of CORR®, The Bone & Joint Journal, the Journal of Orthopaedic Research, and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery, made a bold and resolute joint decision not to accept research papers for consideration that had been previously posted to preprint servers [3]. My summary of the core arguments and concerns of that editorial, which were made specifically about medical preprint servers, are as follows: (1) Published is published, in accordance with the Ingelfinger rule [2], independent of the type of publication (preprint, peer-reviewed paper), thus the republication of a preprint constitutes a duplicate publication, which may be unfair to other academics who do not have such preprints by allowing them to obtain additional citations; (2) poor-quality work posted to preprint servers that is not peer reviewed or held up to strict scrutiny may be perceived—by other scholars, the media, or the public—as being valid when in fact it is not; (3) other reputable journals such as JAMA also consider preprints to be prior publications and thus duplicates, suggesting that there is a deep divide in the medical community regarding the acceptability of preprints; by contrast, a number of other heavyweight medical journals such as The Lancet or BMJ do accept preprints; (4) only a small proportion of preprints—often those garnering strong media or social media attention—ever receive public comments, countering the belief by the pro-preprint movement that preprints increase feedback; and (5) there is concern that preprints might be harmful to human subjects, public health, or patient safety. While several of those concerns are worth considering, it is important to support such concerns with evidence-based cases. In several ways, coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) provides the academic community an opportunity to better appreciate the risks and benefits of preprints in the face of a medical crisis. A May 23, 2020 preprint on bioRxiv found that of the approximately 16,000 COVID-19-related articles that had been published between January 1, 2020 and April 30, 2020, more than 6000 had been posted to preprint servers. The largest number of these articles (~ 2000) appeared in medRxiv [1]. Given the large volume of preprints related to COVID-19, do they constitute any risk to public health? A definitive answer is likely not possible. I believe that one positive aspect of preprints, especially those related to COVID-19, is that information is open to the public for rapid screening, scrutiny, and criticism. However, there is tremendous risk that medical information that has not been properly vetted (and thus might be misinformation) may cause harm to the public or to those with COVID-19 if used inappropriately. An example of this is the suggested reuse of drugs used to treat other ailments but repurposed for the treatment of COVID-19 without any clinical trials or insufficient testing. Academics aren’t the only ones scrutinizing preprints and peer-reviewed papers. The public, health officials, and the media can also get involved. One example of this is the postpublication site, PubPeer. While public scrutiny of preprints is random, journal peer review is supposedly under the strict control of peers and editors. Faulty peer-reviewed research papers do get called out and corrected accordingly. For example, a peer-reviewed comment in The Lancet Global Heath was retracted [10] while a biorXiv preprint was withdrawn [4]. However, the penalty of error may be somewhat less severe for author(s) of preprints, since preprint articles can simply be corrected with limited ethical repercussions. Retractions from peer-reviewed journals are often associated with negative stigmatization and potentially irreparable career damage for the author(s) [8]. Some preprints are being silently withdrawn from the public record, without any transparent explanation. To some extent, these are equivalent to silent retractions [7]. For example, a Google search of the terms “COVID-19 preprints.org withdrawn” reveals that dozens of preprints have been withdrawn without any transparently stated reasons. As one example, Tahir ul Qamar et al. [5] was withdrawn for no stated reason, but appears published as a peer-reviewed paper in Journal of Pharmaceutical Analysis [6]. I believe that withdrawn preprints should be indexed, silently withdrawn preprints should be monitored, and withdrawn preprints must be given the same level of scrutiny as retracted peer reviewed papers. Preprints are increasingly being incorporated into the publishing flow-stream of an increasing number of publishers [9]. Despite this, the risks of preprints, especially related to or amplified by COVID-19, have not been sufficiently examined. Pro-preprint bodies like ASAPbio and philanthropic funders such as the Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, need to recognize that there are real risks of misinformation, risks to the integrity of peer-reviewed work through the citation of preprints, and now risks to the integrity of the published record caused by the “silent retraction/withdrawal” of preprints that are not compliant with Committee on Publication Ethics policies on retractions. In the age of COVID-19, as has already been seen with the hydroxychloroquine debate, badly peer-reviewed work or preprinted work may constitute a serious public health risk before academics consider preprints to be part of the mainstream publishing process." @default.
• W3042679173 created "2020-07-23" @default.
• W3042679173 creator A5087016011 @default.
• W3042679173 date "2020-06-26" @default.
• W3042679173 modified "2023-09-27" @default.
• W3042679173 title "Letter to the Editor: Editorial: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, The Bone & Joint Journal, The Journal of Orthopaedic Research, and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Will Not Accept Clinical Research Manuscripts Previously Posted to Preprint Servers" @default.
• W3042679173 cites W2205230822 @default.
• W3042679173 cites W2906524627 @default.
• W3042679173 cites W2917895271 @default.
• W3042679173 cites W4247838263 @default.
• W3042679173 doi "https://doi.org/10.1097/corr.0000000000001384" @default.
• W3042679173 hasPubMedCentralId "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/7431228" @default.
• W3042679173 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32657809" @default.
• W3042679173 hasPublicationYear "2020" @default.
• W3042679173 type Work @default.
• W3042679173 sameAs 3042679173 @default.
• W3042679173 citedByCount "2" @default.
• W3042679173 countsByYear W30426791732020 @default.
• W3042679173 countsByYear W30426791732021 @default.
• W3042679173 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W3042679173 hasAuthorship W3042679173A5087016011 @default.
• W3042679173 hasBestOaLocation W30426791731 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConcept C127413603 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConcept C136764020 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConcept C151719136 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConcept C161191863 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConcept C170154142 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConcept C17744445 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConcept C18555067 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConcept C199539241 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConcept C2776050585 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConcept C3017579018 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConcept C41008148 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConcept C43169469 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConcept C512399662 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConceptScore W3042679173C127413603 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConceptScore W3042679173C136764020 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConceptScore W3042679173C151719136 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConceptScore W3042679173C161191863 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConceptScore W3042679173C170154142 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConceptScore W3042679173C17744445 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConceptScore W3042679173C18555067 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConceptScore W3042679173C199539241 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConceptScore W3042679173C2776050585 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConceptScore W3042679173C3017579018 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConceptScore W3042679173C41008148 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConceptScore W3042679173C43169469 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConceptScore W3042679173C512399662 @default.
• W3042679173 hasConceptScore W3042679173C71924100 @default.
• W3042679173 hasIssue "9" @default.
• W3042679173 hasLocation W30426791731 @default.
• W3042679173 hasLocation W30426791732 @default.
• W3042679173 hasLocation W30426791733 @default.
• W3042679173 hasOpenAccess W3042679173 @default.
• W3042679173 hasPrimaryLocation W30426791731 @default.
• W3042679173 hasRelatedWork W2088379619 @default.
• W3042679173 hasRelatedWork W2329432077 @default.
• W3042679173 hasRelatedWork W3130873102 @default.
• W3042679173 hasRelatedWork W3200129167 @default.
• W3042679173 hasRelatedWork W4200453157 @default.
• W3042679173 hasRelatedWork W4224230083 @default.
• W3042679173 hasRelatedWork W4316092671 @default.
• W3042679173 hasRelatedWork W4322501846 @default.
• W3042679173 hasRelatedWork W4379600244 @default.
• W3042679173 hasRelatedWork W2612425971 @default.
• W3042679173 hasVolume "478" @default.
• W3042679173 isParatext "false" @default.
• W3042679173 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W3042679173 magId "3042679173" @default.
• W3042679173 workType "letter" @default.