search.noResults

search.searching

saml.title
dataCollection.invalidEmail
note.createNoteMessage

search.noResults

search.searching

orderForm.title

orderForm.productCode
orderForm.description
orderForm.quantity
orderForm.itemPrice
orderForm.price
orderForm.totalPrice
orderForm.deliveryDetails.billingAddress
orderForm.deliveryDetails.deliveryAddress
orderForm.noItems
Feature


and World Health Organization have since condemned such reports, but these now infamous publications undoubtedly fuelled the already widely-circulating coronavirus conspiracy theories at the time. Herein lies the problem with preprints. ‘With such examples in mind, myself and Amy Brand [MIT Press director] put our heads together and asked, how can we help here?’ says Lindsay. ‘As we talked, it became clear that this was a big opportunity to have a positive effect on the public understanding and trust in science, and also offer a service to mainstream media, researchers, scholars and clinicians that needed a preprint verification that wasn’t yet happening.’ Rapid Reviews: Covid-19 (RR:C19), headed up by public health Professor


www.researchinformation.info | @researchinfo


“A ResearchGate preprint… proposed that coronavirus ‘probably originated from a laboratory’”


Stefano Bertozzi at the University of California Berkeley, quickly followed. Described as an ‘open-access overlay journal’, the publication aims to accelerate the peer review of Covid-19-related research preprints to advance findings and prevent the dissemination of false or misleading news. To speed up the process, the editorial team, including an army of graduate


students, selects potential Covid-19 preprints for review, from preprint servers such as medRxiv, bioRxiv, SSRN, with help from Covid Scholar. This text-mining tool was developed by Berkeley Lab materials scientists to help researchers wade through mountains of Covid-19 literature. The chosen preprints are then sent


to RR:C19’s pool of reviewers, who will answer key questions such as is this preprint reliable and trustworthy, should it be taken seriously, how might it be used to further our knowledge in fighting the pandemic? Lindsay says, this isn’t traditional peer


review. RR:C19 is trying to balance the need for rigour with rapid response, and as such, preprints should be published, with two finished reviews, within two weeks.


February/March 2021 Research Information g 5


oxygen_8/Shutterstock.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24  |  Page 25  |  Page 26  |  Page 27  |  Page 28  |  Page 29  |  Page 30  |  Page 31  |  Page 32  |  Page 33  |  Page 34