BioRxiv + the general public = a problem
With the current stay-at-home order and everyone on the internet scrolling social media for new coronavirus updates, it's very easy to come across conspiracy theories on twitter about coronavirus. At first look, these theories appear to be real because they (for once) have "scientific articles" cited. Further clicking on the articles shows that the article comes from a website, such as bioRxiv or medRxiv. Both of these websites are places for scientists to preliminary share their work with other scientists before being accepted to and published in a peer-reviewed journal. Since December, the site reports a "100-fold" surge of views and downloads.
As pharmacy students, we know the risk of trusting articles that have not been peer-reviewed. We have had classes both in pharmacy school and in undergrad warn us that these articles should be vetted and not be taken as fact until published in a journal. To the general public, many of whom are scientific journal novices do not know this and take this article for what it is and trust it as factual science. In reality, the article may not exhibit any real science at all. Sure, before posting an article, bioRxiv screens articles for offensive, dangerous, non-scientific content, and plagiarism according to their FAQ section. However, novices do not understand when a methods section sounds off or when statistical analyses do not make sense.
During the pandemic, directors of the site have created a yellow banner that is posted at the top stating: "preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information." Despite this banner, some news outlets are using the site as they would a journal article. The New York Times reports, one article on the site claimed transmission of the new coronavirus "in the form of droplets or aerosols 'appears to be likely'". When peer-reviewed by the New England Journal of Medicine, this language was taken out, but news articles had already been written on the pre peer-reviewed paper. Because of these situations, bioRxiv and medRxiv have decided to take a closer look at coronavirus related articles specifically. Many articles that would have been accepted pre-coronavirus have been denied due to lack of evidence.
To further reduce misuse of these preprint articles, the NYT jokes:
“Every drug ad has to end with: ‘talk to your doctor,’” Dr. Oransky said. “Maybe every preprint header or primer should end with, ‘talk to your neighborhood statistician,’” to determine how legitimate a paper is — or is not.
Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/science/coronavirus-disinformation.html
https://www.biorxiv.org/about/FAQ
As pharmacy students, we know the risk of trusting articles that have not been peer-reviewed. We have had classes both in pharmacy school and in undergrad warn us that these articles should be vetted and not be taken as fact until published in a journal. To the general public, many of whom are scientific journal novices do not know this and take this article for what it is and trust it as factual science. In reality, the article may not exhibit any real science at all. Sure, before posting an article, bioRxiv screens articles for offensive, dangerous, non-scientific content, and plagiarism according to their FAQ section. However, novices do not understand when a methods section sounds off or when statistical analyses do not make sense.
During the pandemic, directors of the site have created a yellow banner that is posted at the top stating: "preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information." Despite this banner, some news outlets are using the site as they would a journal article. The New York Times reports, one article on the site claimed transmission of the new coronavirus "in the form of droplets or aerosols 'appears to be likely'". When peer-reviewed by the New England Journal of Medicine, this language was taken out, but news articles had already been written on the pre peer-reviewed paper. Because of these situations, bioRxiv and medRxiv have decided to take a closer look at coronavirus related articles specifically. Many articles that would have been accepted pre-coronavirus have been denied due to lack of evidence.
To further reduce misuse of these preprint articles, the NYT jokes:
“Every drug ad has to end with: ‘talk to your doctor,’” Dr. Oransky said. “Maybe every preprint header or primer should end with, ‘talk to your neighborhood statistician,’” to determine how legitimate a paper is — or is not.
Sources: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/14/science/coronavirus-disinformation.html
https://www.biorxiv.org/about/FAQ
Comments
Post a Comment