View source for Theme:7bef694c-a3df-40ae-8cfb-97b894a5f90e

{{Theme
|Theme Type=Misconduct & Misbehaviors
|Has Parent Theme=Theme:48185295-9e1e-41fb-ab70-948596e588d5
|Title=Communicate results to the general public before a peer reviewed publication is available
|Is About=Peer reviews have become a crucial step in the academic dissemination of information. Not only does it serve as a means of quality control, it also legitimizes research through a process of verification and validation. Meant to provide constructive feedback to the authors, the process of peer review involves a thorough evaluation of the research methodology and findings by experts or colleagues in the field (“peers”).

The main strength of the peer reviews lie in the fact that they are capable of preventing the dissemination of flawed or manipulated information. Thus, publication in a peer-reviewed journals has become a pre-requisite for scientific credibility. However, it is not without drawbacks: not only is  the review process is subject to biases and errors, but it could also potentially be misused by editors and reviewers to exclude novel information that refutes current standards. <sup>1</sup> Further, peer-reviews are also time-consuming, with the average time for accepted papers being 17 weeks. <sup>2</sup> In the case of research that is life-saving and of immediate impact, such delays could prove harmful. To circumvent this problem, many journals allow the publication of “pre-prints”, which are non-reviewed manuscripts  which are disseminated online, hosted mostly on “pre-print servers” such as MedArxiv, arXiv and bioRxiv. <sup>3</sup> Pre-prints can be peer-reviewed and published formally at a later stage. Besides saving time, disseminating research in this manner also encourages feedback from a broader audience, improves the visibility of early stage researchers and help in manuscript revision prior to publication. <sup>4</sup>
|Important Because=Although the use of pre-print servers has been rising over the past decade, the COVID-19 pandemic has witnessed an unprecedented surge in the number of pre-prints. Fraser et al.<sup>5</sup> found that 25% or all articles on COVID-19 in the first 10 months of the pandemic (more than 30,000 manuscripts) were first posted as pre-prints. Besides attracting the attention of the scientific community, these manuscripts have also received substantial coverage in social media, news outlets and from the general public. <sup>6</sup> They have also played a crucial role in shaping the standard of care for COVID-19. In case of the RECOVERY trial, which studied the use of the steroid drug dexamethasone in critically ill COVID patients, the pre-publication of the benefits of the drug led to its prompt incorporation into treatment guidelines, and possibly benefited many gravely ill patients. <sup>7,8</sup> 

On the other hand, disseminating information prior to peer review has also had negative consequences during the pandemic. A study that reported beneficial effects of a combination therapy of hydroxychloroquine and azithromycin was published in May 2020 on MedRxiv. <sup>9</sup> It was later withdrawn due to its questionable methodology, but not before it was widely publicized as being a “game-changer in the history of medicine” by a prominent political figure, leading to huge demands, severe shortages and indiscriminate use of these drugs. <sup>10</sup> Another paper that received widespread attention prior to its retraction reported an “uncanny similarity” between the protein structures or the COVID-19 virus and HIV, and concluded that this similarity was “unlikely to be fortuitous”, leading many to speculate that the pandemic was the result of a bioengineered weaponized virus. <sup>11,12</sup> Although the above examples are clear-cut and have been cited often, it is very likely that less evident instances of the misuse of non-peer reviewed information exist, making it a difficult challenge to address.
|Important For=Researchers; Research institutions; Authors; General public
|Has Best Practice=Although it is evident that non-peer-reviewed information has its pros and cons, it is not evident what the obligations of researchers are with regard to the dissemination of their research. The European Code of Conduct in Research Integrity, for instance, states that authors should be “…. honest in their communication to the general public and in traditional and social media.” <sup>13</sup> Thus, it does not explicitly forbid the pre-publication dissemination of results. In a public health emergency such as the ongoing pandemic, the situation is even more complex. The WHO Working Group on Ethics and COVID-19 states that “researchers generating information that has the potential to aid response efforts have an ethical obligation to share that information as soon as it is quality-controlled for release (e.g., peer-reviewed),” and that they should “…share this information without waiting for publication in scientific journals.” <sup>14</sup> These statements seem confusing, as it is unclear whether authors should wait until the manuscript is peer reviewed (which could be a long period) or circumvent this step. Here, the benefits of timely communication should be balanced against the potential risk of spreading inaccurate information, which can have lasting consequences.  

When unreviewed information is communicated, however, it should be clearly labelled as such. In line with the principles of honesty, accuracy and transparency recommended by the ECCRI, neither the findings nor the relevance of the research should be exaggerated or misrepresented.
|Has Detail=References: 

1.          Kreiman J. On peer review. ''J Speech, Lang Hear Res''. 2016;59(3):480-483. doi:10.1044/2016_JSLHR-S-16-0043

2.          Huisman J, Smits J. Duration and quality of the peer review process: the author’s perspective. ''Sci 2017 1131''. 2017;113(1):633-650. doi:10.1007/S11192-017-2310-5

3.          Ravinetto R, Caillet C, Zaman MH, et al. Preprints in times of COVID19: the time is ripe for agreeing on terminology and good practices. ''BMC Med Ethics 2021 221''. 2021;22(1):1-5. doi:10.1186/S12910-021-00667-7

4.          Sarabipour S, Debat HJ, Emmott E, Burgess SJ, Schwessinger B, Hensel Z. On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective. ''PLoS Biol''. 2019;17(2). doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PBIO.3000151

5.          Fraser N, Brierley L, Dey G, et al. The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape. ''PLOS Biol''. 2021;19(4):e3000959. doi:10.1371/JOURNAL.PBIO.3000959

6.          Reddick R. Preprints: how draft academic papers have become essential in the fight against COVID. Published 2021. Accessed October 11, 2021. <nowiki>https://theconversation.com/preprints-how-draft-academic-papers-have-become-essential-in-the-fight-against-covid-158811</nowiki>

7.          Ledford H. Coronavirus breakthrough: dexamethasone is first drug shown to save lives. Accessed October 11, 2021. <nowiki>https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-01824-5#ref-CR1</nowiki>

8.          Horby P, Lim WS, Emberson J, et al. Effect of Dexamethasone in Hospitalized Patients with COVID-19 – Preliminary Report. ''medRxiv''. Published online June 22, 2020:2020.06.22.20137273. doi:10.1101/2020.06.22.20137273

9.          Davido B, Lansaman T, Bessis S, et al. Hydroxychloroquine plus azithromycin: a potential interest in reducing in-hospital morbidity due to COVID-19 pneumonia (HI-ZY-COVID)? ''medRxiv''. Published online May 11, 2020:2020.05.05.20088757. doi:10.1101/2020.05.05.20088757

10.       Piller C. ‘This is insane!’ Many scientists lament Trump’s embrace of risky malaria drugs for coronavirus. ''Science (80- )''. Published online March 26, 2020. doi:10.1126/SCIENCE.ABB9021

11.       Pradhan P, Pandey AK, Mishra A, et al. Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and Gag. ''bioRxiv''. Published online January 31, 2020:2020.01.30.927871. doi:10.1101/2020.01.30.927871

12.       Between fast science and fake news: Preprint servers are political: Impact of Social Sciences. Accessed October 11, 2021. <nowiki>https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/impactofsocialsciences/2020/04/03/between-fast-science-and-fake-news-preprint-servers-are-political/</nowiki>

13.       The European Code of Conduct for Research Integrity. Accessed October 11, 2021. www.allea.org

14.       Organization WH. ''Ethical Standards for Research during Public Health Emergencies: Distilling Existing Guidance to Support COVID-19 R&D''. World Health Organization; 2020.
}}
{{Related To
|Related To Resource=Resource:F825e89a-2cab-4ee1-ac16-ef37dd6fdb01
|Related To Theme=Theme:29d64b53-eba2-489b-937d-440d6cd118d8
}}
{{Tags
|Has Virtue And Value=Transparency; rigour; Accountability
|Has Good Practice And Misconduct=Public Communication
}}