Last week we ran Twitter polls for preprint servers, research institutions, researchers and journalists to provide feedback on the outcomes of the Preprints in the Public Eye project.
The project aim is to encourage the responsible reporting of research to avoid its misrepresentation or misinterpretation. The project involves stakeholders representing researchers, institutions, preprint servers, publishers and journalism, and the outcomes are a set of guiding principles and a collection of resources to encourage the transparent and accurate reporting of research. The focus of the project is on preprints, but the principles apply to research published in peer reviewed journals as well.
While in no way scientific, the polls show a majority agreement with most of the guiding principles for preprint servers, institutions and researchers. The most obvious area of contention seems to be whether, “Institutions should actively avoid promoting research in the media that has not undergone peer review, eg, preprints, except in rare and exceptional circumstances where the rapid dissemination of information is critical to public health or safety.”
The number of responses from journalists was too small to comment.
Do you think institutions should avoid actively promoting research posted as preprints except in rare and exceptional circumstances? Are you a journalist or science writer? What do you think about the guiding principles and resources?
If you have any comments, you can view the detailed guiding principles and resources, the list of contributors and provide your feedback here.
If you are interested in the topic of misreporting and misinterpretation of research and the positive steps that can be taken to tackle it, join us for our online event, #PreprintsInThePublicEye: Challenges and Solutions in an Age of Misinformation, on January 14th, 2021. You can see the program and register here.
