Abstract
Introduction There is concern that preprint articles will lead to an increase in the amount of scientifically invalid work available. The objectives of this study were 1) to determine the proportion of prevention preprints published within 12 months, 2) to assess the consistency of the effect estimates and conclusions between preprint and published articles, and 3) to explore the reasons for the nonpublication of preprints.
Methods We developed a web crawler to search the preprint server medRxiv for prevention studies posted from January 1 to September 30, 2020. An update search was conducted 12 months later. We dually screened the results for prevention articles and developed a scheme to classify changes in effect sizes and conclusions. We modeled the effect of a set of predictors on the proportion of preprints published in peer-reviewed journals. We also developed a questionnaire for authors of unpublished preprints.
Results Of the 329 prevention preprints that met our eligibility criteria, almost half (48.9%) were published in a peer-reviewed journal within 12 months of being posted, with the median time being 5.3 months (range 0.1–11.3 months). While 27 out of 161 (16.8%) published preprints showed some change in the magnitude of the primary outcome effect estimate, 4.4% were classified as having a major change. The style or wording of the conclusion changed in 42.2%, while the content of the conclusion changed in 3.1%. Preprints on chemoprevention, with a cross-sectional design, and with public and noncommercial funding had the highest probabilities of publication. The main reasons for the nonpublication of preprints were journal rejection or lack of time.
Conclusion The reliability of preprint articles for evidence-based decision-making is questionable. Less than half of the preprint articles on prevention research are published in a peer-reviewed journal within 12 months, and significant changes in effect sizes and/or conclusions are still possible during the peer-review process.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Clinical Protocols
Funding Statement
The authors received no specific funding for this work.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
The ethics committee of the University for Continuing Education, Krems, approved the survey study (EK GZ 28/2021-2024).
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All relevant are available from the OSF database (https://osf.io/cnkdw)
