The pandemic has seen a surge in the number of preprints shared but also in the number of questionable practices that helped the sharing of unvalidated findings and dangerous claims about potential treatments.
2/6
We thus decided to check the COVID-19 literature for some of the issues we thought could plague it. We looked for potential editorial conflicts of interest in the fast-track reviews, or the share of preprints in the media.
3/6
While the need for fast peer-review is understandable, we looked at the 700 papers that were reviewed in a day or less to find potential editorial conflict of interest. 4/6
Similarly, while we understand the need to report on latest scientific findings during a pandemic, we found that COVID-19 preprints had been shared by news almost 10 times more than other preprints, leading to the spread of non-peer-reviewed findings. Poke @altmetric
5/6
We identified other issues in the submission that are detailed in the following image, along with the Open Science solutions that could have helped during the pandemic.
Please read the article for more details and co-sign it if you agree.
You can follow @lonnibesancon.
Tip: mention @twtextapp on a Twitter thread with the keyword “unroll” to get a link to it.

Latest Threads Unrolled:

By continuing to use the site, you are consenting to the use of cookies as explained in our Cookie Policy to improve your experience.