@article {Celi2021.06.14.21258917, author = {Leo Anthony Celi and Marie-Laure Charpignon and Daniel K. Ebner and Aaron R. Kaufman and Liam G. McCoy and Maria Cecilia Millado and Joel Park and Justin Salciccioli and Julia Situ}, title = {Gender Balance and Readability of COVID-19 Scientific Publishing: A Quantitative Analysis of 90,000 Preprint Manuscripts}, elocation-id = {2021.06.14.21258917}, year = {2021}, doi = {10.1101/2021.06.14.21258917}, publisher = {Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory Press}, abstract = {Releasing preprints is a popular way to hasten the speed of research but may carry hidden risks for public discourse. The COVID-19 pandemic caused by the novel SARS-CoV-2 infection highlighted the risk of rushing the publication of unvalidated findings, leading to damaging scientific miscommunication in the most extreme scenarios. Several high-profile preprints, later found to be deeply flawed, have indeed exacerbated widespread skepticism about the risks of the COVID-19 disease {\textendash} at great cost to public health. Here, preprint article quality during the pandemic is examined by distinguishing papers related to COVID-19 from other research studies. Importantly, our analysis also investigated possible factors contributing to manuscript quality by assessing the relationship between preprint quality and gender balance in authorship within each research discipline. Using a comprehensive data set of preprint articles from medRxiv and bioRxiv from January to May 2020, we construct both a new index of manuscript quality including length, readability, and spelling correctness and a measure of gender mix among a manuscript{\textquoteright}s authors. We find that papers related to COVID-19 are less well-written than unrelated papers, but that this gap is significantly mitigated by teams with better gender balance, even when controlling for variation by research discipline. Beyond contributing to a systematic evaluation of scientific publishing and dissemination, our results have broader implications for gender and representation as the pandemic has led female researchers to bear more responsibility for childcare under lockdown, inducing additional stress and causing disproportionate harm to women in science.Competing Interest StatementThe authors have declared no competing interest.Funding StatementNo external funding was received.Author DeclarationsI confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.YesThe details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:This is not human subjects research.All necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived.YesI 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).YesI have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.YesAll data are publicly available and a replication file will be made available on the Harvard Dataverse upon publication.}, URL = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/18/2021.06.14.21258917}, eprint = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/early/2021/06/18/2021.06.14.21258917.full.pdf}, journal = {medRxiv} }