Purpose In the current era of the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, the trend of sharing new research results through preprint platforms is receiving more attention from researchers than ever before. Preprints have been recognized as a primary and essential method to disseminate new findings faster than traditional publications. Therefore, it has become necessary for journals and editors to acknowledge these changes, prepare preprint policies, and notify authors accordingly. This study aimed to review the status of preprint policies of international publishers and Asian academic society journals.
Methods In total, 383 Asian academic society journals registered in Science Citation Index Expanded were selected as a dataset for analysis between December 11, 2020 and January 8, 2021. Three different parameters were investigated whether each journal had a preprint policy, whether journals allowed preprint manuscripts to be submitted, and whether preprint articles were allowed to be included in the references.
Results Among the 383 Asian academic society journals from 22 countries, only 28 journals accepted preprint manuscripts, and eight allowed the use of preprint manuscripts as references. Japan had the most journals that both had preprint policies and accepted preprint manuscripts, with 13 journals, followed by Korea with 10 journals.
Conclusion Despite the limitations of this study, the results show that editors and journal staff should understand the current preprint trend and try to prepare preprint policies that best meet the journals’ and authors’ interests.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
Journal metrics, document network, and conceptual and social structures of the Korean Journal of Anesthesiology from 2017 to July 2022: a bibliometric study Sun Huh Korean Journal of Anesthesiology.2023; 76(1): 3. CrossRef
The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review Amanda Jane Blatch-Jones, Alejandra Recio Saucedo, Beth Giddins, Robin Haunschild PLOS ONE.2023; 18(9): e0291627. CrossRef
Promotion to Top-Tier Journal and Development Strategy of the Annals of Laboratory Medicine for Strengthening its Leadership in the Medical Laboratory Technology Category: A Bibliometric Study Sun Huh Annals of Laboratory Medicine.2022; 42(3): 321. CrossRef
The evolution, benefits, and challenges of preprints and their interaction with journals Pippa Smart Science Editing.2022; 9(1): 79. CrossRef
Congratulations on Child Health Nursing Research becoming a PubMed Central journal and reflections on its significance Sun Huh Child Health Nursing Research.2022; 28(1): 1. CrossRef
Korean editors’ and researchers’ experiences with preprints and attitudes towards preprint policies Hyun Jung Yi, Sun Huh Science Editing.2021; 8(1): 4. CrossRef
Document Network and Conceptual and Social Structures of Clinical Endoscopy from 2015 to July 2021 Based on the Web of Science Core Collection: A Bibliometric Study Sun Huh Clinical Endoscopy.2021; 54(5): 641. CrossRef
Purpose This study investigated editors’ and researcher’s experiences with preprints and their attitudes towards preprint policies in Korea.
Methods From December 30, 2019 to January 10, 2020, a Google Forms survey was mailed to members of the Korean Council of Science Editors and the Korean Federation of Science and Technology Societies. The 16 survey items included two demographic items, six items on experience with preprints, five 5-point Likert-scale items on attitudes towards preprints, and three items on advantages and disadvantages.
Results Out of 365 respondents, 56 had deposited their manuscripts on preprint servers, while 49 stated that they allowed preprints in their journals. More than half of the respondents expressed favorable attitudes towards prioritizing preprint deposition, promotion of open access, rapid feedback on preprints, earlier citations, and evidence of research work. Responders in engineering had more experience with the concept of preprints, and were more likely to have heard about preprint servers and preprint deposition by other researchers, than those in medicine. Half of the editors disagreed with the need for preprints, for reasons including a lack of scientific integrity, stealing ideas/scooping data, priority issues regarding research ideas, and copyright problems.
Conclusion The above results showed that preprints are still not actively used in Korea. Although experiences with preprints were not widespread, more than half of the respondents showed favorable attitudes towards preprints. More of a consensus should emerge for preprint policies to be accepted by editors in Korea.
Citations
Citations to this article as recorded by
The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review Amanda Jane Blatch-Jones, Alejandra Recio Saucedo, Beth Giddins, Robin Haunschild PLOS ONE.2023; 18(9): e0291627. CrossRef
Promotion to Top-Tier Journal and Development Strategy of the Annals of Laboratory Medicine for Strengthening its Leadership in the Medical Laboratory Technology Category: A Bibliometric Study Sun Huh Annals of Laboratory Medicine.2022; 42(3): 321. CrossRef
Congratulations on Child Health Nursing Research becoming a PubMed Central journal and reflections on its significance Sun Huh Child Health Nursing Research.2022; 28(1): 1. CrossRef
The evolution, benefits, and challenges of preprints and their interaction with journals Pippa Smart Science Editing.2022; 9(1): 79. CrossRef
Preprint citation practice in PLOS Marc Bertin, Iana Atanassova Scientometrics.2022; 127(12): 6895. CrossRef
Attitudes and practices of open data, preprinting, and peer-review—A cross sectional study on Croatian scientists Ksenija Baždarić, Iva Vrkić, Evgenia Arh, Martina Mavrinac, Maja Gligora Marković, Lidija Bilić-Zulle, Jadranka Stojanovski, Mario Malički, Sergi Lozano PLOS ONE.2021; 16(6): e0244529. CrossRef
Document Network and Conceptual and Social Structures of Clinical Endoscopy from 2015 to July 2021 Based on the Web of Science Core Collection: A Bibliometric Study Sun Huh Clinical Endoscopy.2021; 54(5): 641. CrossRef