IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/oup/scippl/v51y2024i3p477-490..html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Can open peer review improve uptake of preprints into policies? Evidence from a causal inference

Author

Listed:
  • Chuer Xu
  • Qianjin Zong

Abstract

The advantage of no publication time lag had led to the use of preprints as research evidence for public policy development that required a rapid response. However, the opposite side of the lack of publication time lag for preprints was their usual lack of peer review, which was the main reason why preprints were criticized as low quality and unreliable. This study aimed to investigate the effects of open peer review on the uptake of preprints into policies (measured by preprints being cited in policy documents). The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) preprints from bioRxiv and medRxiv were used as a sample (n = 20,959). A causal inference approach, namely, propensity score matching analysis, was used to examine the dataset. Our study found that open peer review significantly increased the uptake of preprints by policies. Limitations of this study were also discussed. This study could bring insights to researchers and preprint servers in improving the uptake of preprints into policies.

Suggested Citation

  • Chuer Xu & Qianjin Zong, 2024. "Can open peer review improve uptake of preprints into policies? Evidence from a causal inference," Science and Public Policy, Oxford University Press, vol. 51(3), pages 477-490.
    • Handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:51:y:2024:i:3:p:477-490.
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://hdl.handle.net/10.1093/scipol/scad083
    Download Restriction: Access to full text is restricted to subscribers.
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:oup:scippl:v:51:y:2024:i:3:p:477-490.. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Oxford University Press (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://academic.oup.com/spp .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.