Preprints can be valuable additions to the scientific literature. But we must start seeing them as perishable commodities rather than akin to peer-reviewed, published studies.
Preprints can be valuable additions to the scientific literature. But we must start seeing them as perishable commodities rather than akin to peer-reviewed, published studies.
Preprints can be valuable additions to the scientific literature. But we must start seeing them as perishable commodities rather than akin to peer-reviewed, published studies.
A Cochrane review bolsters scientists’ advice that ivermectin should not be used against the disease outside of clinical trials, while a study claiming to have found beneficial effects in patients was withdrawn following allegations of data manipulation.
The issue’s guest editors resign after falling out with the publisher over the management of papers, including a rejected manuscript on ivermectin, that were submitted for a special issue on drug repurposing for COVID-19.
A review article containing contested claims about the tropical medicine drug as a COVID-19 treatment was listed as “provisionally accepted” on the journal’s website before being removed this week.
The company behind a now-discredited study on hydroxychloroquine also posted a report that has been cited by Latin American governments recommending ivermectin as a possible coronavirus treatment. Clinicians there say the effects have been extremely damaging.