{"id":3480,"date":"2020-05-14T11:50:15","date_gmt":"2020-05-14T11:50:15","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-role-of-preprints-in-aiding-the-speedy-dissemination-of-covid-19-research\/"},"modified":"2025-01-15T06:30:09","modified_gmt":"2025-01-15T06:30:09","slug":"the-role-of-preprints-in-aiding-the-speedy-dissemination-of-covid-19-research","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.editage.com\/insights\/the-role-of-preprints-in-aiding-the-speedy-dissemination-of-covid-19-research","title":{"rendered":"The role of preprints in aiding the speedy dissemination of COVID-19 research"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the diagnosis and treatment of any disease, time is of utmost importance. This has been especially true of COVID-19<\/a><\/span><\/span>, which within the span of a few months, has escalated into a global crisis. Ever since the identification of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, researchers have been racing against time to thwart its spread among the population and stem the increasing mortalities by uncovering its pathology and working to develop potential vaccines and treatments. Speed is of the essence \u2013 speed of research and speed of disseminating research findings. The faster the results of various experiments can be shared, the faster alternative routes of treatment can be explored. What, to an increasing extent, is helping the world\u2019s army of researchers in this fight? Preprints.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Preprints<\/a><\/span><\/span><\/span> are completed drafts of research papers that are open for public viewing without having undergone a peer review and therefore not yet been published. Preprints have been gaining popularity over the years on account of the multiple benefits they offer researchers: free uploading, faster dissemination of findings, immediate feedback, and wide visibility.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

How preprints are expediting COVID-19 research<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

In a world grappling with COVID-19 at several levels<\/a><\/span><\/span> \u2013 virological, epidemiological, clinical, and sociological \u2013 preprints have attained increased significance. They are allowing researchers to share their sequences, datasets, observations, and study results immediately. This in turn is enabling other researchers worldwide to access, analyze, and utilize this knowledge for their own studies.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Michael Johansson, a biologist at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), Atlanta, views<\/a><\/span><\/span> that in the face of a pandemic such as COVID-19, \u201ctraditional review methods are too slow<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>.\u201d It takes at least several weeks or even a few months for a paper to be published in a journal. Additionally, the acceptance rates of quality journals are often in single digits. For instance, despite accelerating its review cycle, the New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) has been accepting only 2%<\/a><\/span><\/span> of the approximately 2,000 COVID-19 papers it has been receiving per month. In contrast, bioRxiv<\/a><\/span><\/span> and medRxiv<\/a><\/span><\/span>, the two leading preprint repositories in the life sciences, have together hosted over 3,000 papers<\/a><\/span><\/span> since the outbreak. Richard Sever, a co-founder of both the repositories, believes<\/a><\/span><\/span> that preprints are helping accelerate treatment research: \u201cThe more you know about the bug, and the quicker you know it, the better chance you have of developing something to counteract it.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Preprints have been especially beneficial from the perspective of negative findings. Negative experiments typically have fewer takers in most journals<\/a>.<\/span><\/span> In contrast, the results of failed experiments are freely available on a preprint repository, allowing researchers to understand what has not worked and why, and therefore, what alternatives could be attempted to arrive at something that might succeed. This is helping legions of researchers make speedier, better informed decisions, which assumes immense importance in the current crisis.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\"Default<\/a><\/p>\n

Preprints are also fostering collaboration, a necessity for the multidisciplinary research requirements of a pandemic. Russ Altman, professor of bioengineering, genetics, medicine, and biomedical data at Stanford University, California, shares<\/a><\/span><\/span> that he uploaded a paper on ChemRxiv<\/a><\/span><\/span> \u2013 about potentially repurposing drugs to address SARS-CoV-2 \u2013 primarily with the aim of attracting collaborators<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span>. However, collaboration in the preprints space can also be less formal, though no less valuable. Preprint repositories offer a section for comments, allowing other researchers and even citizen scientists and informed lay people to provide feedback and inputs on papers, often leading authors to go back and improve their papers or even be prompted toward new lines of research.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Some challenges with preprints<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

The increased uptake of preprints has also brought into focus a set of challenges in research communication and impact. For example, a preprint that talked of \u201can uncanny similarity<\/a><\/span><\/span>\u201d between HIV and SARS-CoV-2 (thereby implying that the virus was genetically engineered and therefore an attempt at bio-warfare) gained quickfire visibility before it was discovered to report questionable science and eventually had to be withdrawn<\/a><\/span><\/span>. A paper<\/a><\/span><\/span> that propounded the efficacy of hydroxychloroquine\u00a0in treating the virus initiated peremptory policy discussions in the US that were promptly rebutted by experts. In an extreme case<\/a><\/span><\/span>, the results reported in a preprint inadvertently led a couple to self-medicate, resulting in one fatality.\u00a0Unfortunately, these few misinformed papers might cast a shadow of doubt on the legitimacy of preprints, potentially undermining the vast value and benefits they offer. As Stanley Qi, assistant professor of bioengineering and chemical and systems biology at Stanford University, notes, \u201cSometimes, one piece of wrong information\u2026 can damage ten good papers<\/a><\/span><\/span>.\u201d<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

Making the preprints eco-system robust<\/span><\/b><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

So, what steps are being taken to ensure preprints continue delivering on their potential even while attempts continue worldwide to control the pandemic and mitigate its effects?<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

To ensure the \u2018infodemic\u2019<\/a><\/span><\/span> doesn\u2019t reach the scale of the pandemic, experts in their respective fields have been providing informed commentary on emerging papers \u2013 both on preprint repositories as well as on social media platforms. This has helped flag papers with a weak conceptual, empirical, or methodological basis as also improve those that report potentially useful findings. Trevor Bedford, an epidemiologist at the University of Washington (UW), Seattle, discussed the flaws<\/a><\/span><\/span> of the paper that suggested a link between SARS-CoV-2 \u00a0and HIV. Several similar critiques by other researchers led to the paper being withdrawn<\/a><\/span><\/span> within two days<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span> of its upload on bioRxiv.<\/span><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/p>\n

\n

These short inserts do indeed exist in #nCoV2019<\/a> relative to its closest sequenced relative (BetaCoV\/bat\/Yunnan\/RaTG13\/2013, seen here https:\/\/t.co\/Qz2zmZD5yS<\/a>). However, a simple BLAST of such short sequences shows match to a huge variety of organisms. No reason to conclude HIV. https:\/\/t.co\/HnOWB5OQi4<\/a> pic.twitter.com\/mUfxwB6GsP<\/a><\/p>\n

\u2014 Trevor Bedford (@trvrb) January 31, 2020<\/a><\/p><\/blockquote>\n