Can open peer review improve uptake of preprints into policies? Evidence from a causal inference

Chuer Xu, Qianjin Zong
{"title":"Can open peer review improve uptake of preprints into policies? Evidence from a causal inference","authors":"Chuer Xu, Qianjin Zong","doi":"10.1093/scipol/scad083","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n The advantage of no publication time lag had led to the use of preprints as research evidence for public policy development that required a rapid response. However, the opposite side of the lack of publication time lag for preprints was their usual lack of peer review, which was the main reason why preprints were criticized as low quality and unreliable. This study aimed to investigate the effects of open peer review on the uptake of preprints into policies (measured by preprints being cited in policy documents). The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) preprints from bioRxiv and medRxiv were used as a sample (n = 20,959). A causal inference approach, namely, propensity score matching analysis, was used to examine the dataset. Our study found that open peer review significantly increased the uptake of preprints by policies. Limitations of this study were also discussed. This study could bring insights to researchers and preprint servers in improving the uptake of preprints into policies.","PeriodicalId":510011,"journal":{"name":"Science and Public Policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Science and Public Policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/scipol/scad083","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The advantage of no publication time lag had led to the use of preprints as research evidence for public policy development that required a rapid response. However, the opposite side of the lack of publication time lag for preprints was their usual lack of peer review, which was the main reason why preprints were criticized as low quality and unreliable. This study aimed to investigate the effects of open peer review on the uptake of preprints into policies (measured by preprints being cited in policy documents). The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) preprints from bioRxiv and medRxiv were used as a sample (n = 20,959). A causal inference approach, namely, propensity score matching analysis, was used to examine the dataset. Our study found that open peer review significantly increased the uptake of preprints by policies. Limitations of this study were also discussed. This study could bring insights to researchers and preprint servers in improving the uptake of preprints into policies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
开放式同行评审能否提高预印本的政策吸收率?因果推论的证据
没有出版时间滞后的优势导致人们将预印本作为需要快速反应的公共政策制定的研究证据。然而,预印本没有出版时滞的另一面是其通常缺乏同行评审,这也是预印本被批评为质量低、不可靠的主要原因。本研究旨在调查公开同行评审对预印本纳入政策的影响(以预印本在政策文件中的引用情况来衡量)。研究以bioRxiv和medRxiv的2019年冠状病毒疾病(COVID-19)预印本为样本(n = 20,959)。我们采用了一种因果推理方法,即倾向得分匹配分析,来研究数据集。我们的研究发现,开放同行评审大大提高了政策对预印本的吸收。我们还讨论了本研究的局限性。本研究可为研究人员和预印本服务器在提高政策对预印本的吸收方面带来启示。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Industrial policy and strategy: a contextual perspective and descriptive typology Returnees and innovation: evidence from Chinese publicly listed firms Nanotechnology and knowledge relatedness: how to identify optimal regional partners in EU innovation networks? Representing science: diversity on the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology Institutional implications for science and industrial capacity: policy lessons from the UK’s pandemic response
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1