Skip Navigation
Skip to contents

Perspect Integr Med : Perspectives on Integrative Medicine

OPEN ACCESS
SEARCH
Search

Articles

Page Path
HOME > Perspect Integr Med > Volume 3(3); 2024 > Article
Protocol
A Protocol for a Bibliometric Analysis of Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine Research Preprints
Jeremy Y. Ng1,2,3,*orcid, Brenda Lin1,2orcid, Sabrina Abdella1,2orcid, Magdalene Abebe1,2orcid, Isabella Tao1,2orcid, Holger Cramer1,2orcid
Perspectives on Integrative Medicine 2024;3(3):172-176.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.56986/pim.2024.10.007
Published online: October 31, 2024

1Institute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Tübingen, Germany

2Robert Bosch Center for Integrative Medicine and Health, Bosch Health Campus, Stuttgart, Germany

3Centre for Journalology, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa, Canada

*Corresponding author: Jeremy Y. Ng, Institute of General Practice and Interprofessional Care, University Hospital Tübingen, Osianderstr 5, Tübingen 72076, Germany, Email: ngjy2@mcmaster.ca, jeremy.ng@med.uni-tuebingen.de
• Received: August 24, 2024   • Revised: September 23, 2024   • Accepted: September 25, 2024

©2024 Jaseng Medical Foundation

This is an open access article under the CC BY-NC license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/).

prev next
  • 688 Views
  • 9 Download
  • Background
    Traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) has witnessed significant growth in interest globally. Despite its popularity, TCIM research encounters numerous challenges including funding, methodological issues, and risk of bias. Preprints (scientific manuscripts openly accessible before formal peer review) present a potential solution, and understanding the characteristics and impact of TCIM preprints could offer valuable insights.
  • Methods
    A bibliometric analysis will be conducted on all TCIM-related preprints, since inception, and posted on preprint servers with TCIM subject filters. Preprints will be sourced from servers listed in the Accelerating Science and Publication in Biology directory which allow filtering by TCIM-related categories. The preprint server and URLs, preprint server’s disciplinary scope, ownership type, screening processes, external content indexing, permanence of content, preservation of content, and comments will be extracted. The number of TCIM-related preprints yielded, and which TCIM-related term each preprint server uses will be noted. Data will be extracted from each eligible preprint: preprint server, title, DOI, preprint posted date, status of preprint, journal of final publication, final publication date, type of preprint, abstract of preprint, authors, author affiliation(s), country of corresponding author, funders, number of views, number of downloads, number of comments, number of citations, number of versions, and keywords. Descriptive statistics will be used to summarize the bibliometric characteristics, and trend analysis will identify publication patterns over time.
  • Conclusion
    This protocol was developed for a study to identify trends in TCIM research dissemination, and contribute to a better understanding of how preprints are being used to advance the field
Traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) encompasses a wide array of healthcare practices that fall outside conventional medicine. Traditional medicine is “the sum of the knowledge, skills and practices based on the theories, beliefs and experiences indigenous to different cultures, whether explicable or not, used in the maintenance of health and the prevention, diagnosis, improvement or treatment of physical and mental illness” [1]. Complementary medicine involves “the use of nonmainstream practices alongside conventional medical treatments,” while integrative medicine “brings conventional and complementary approaches together in a coordinated way” [2,3].
The US National Center for Complementary and Integrative Health has 3 main categories of complementary health approaches: nutrition, psychological, and physical. Nutritional therapies focus on dietary approaches to treatment such as the use of supplements and herbs. The psychological approach may include mindfulness and spiritual practices. The physical treatments encompass approaches such as massage therapy or spinal manipulation. Within these 3 categories of nutrition, psychological, and physical approaches, there are many treatments that intersect 2 or more of the categories such as meditation, which encompasses both a psychological and physical approach [2,4].
TCIM plays an important role in global healthcare, particularly in regions where traditional practices are deeply rooted in cultural heritage. A World Health Organization report published in 2019 shows that traditional medicine is widely used, and states that 88% of the global population has used some form of TCIM [5]. Patients use TCIM for numerous reasons such as enhancing quality of life, alleviating symptoms, as a supplement to conventional therapies, and gaining control over their healthcare [68]. This widespread use is paralleled by growing scientific interest and an increasing number of studies exploring the efficacy, safety, and mechanisms of TCIM therapies [9]. The integration of TCIM into modern healthcare systems aims to provide a more holistic approach to health and well-being which addresses the needs of individuals who seek a more personalized, and culturally resonant healthcare option [2,7].
TCIM is an important healthcare option and it is popular, however, TCIM research faces several significant challenges [1012]. One of the primary barriers is access to funding [13,14]. TCIM research often struggles to secure financial support compared with conventional medicine research, and thus, limiting the scope and scale of the TCIM studies conducted [15,16]. High-quality research in TCIM is also hampered by methodological challenges including difficulties in standardizing treatments and monitoring outcomes, controlling for placebo effects, and ensuring rigorous study design that can withstand scientific scrutiny [1719]. In addition, there are competency-related barriers such as insufficient training in research methods among TCIM practitioners and researchers, and inadequate research experience [13,16]. These issues may contribute to the perception that TCIM research is of relatively lower methodological quality compared with research in conventional medicine. Bias-related barriers further complicate TCIM research and lead to the belief that the evidence is anecdotal and TCIM practices and research may be discredited due to personal opinions within conventional medicine [20]. This skepticism can unnecessarily hinder the publication and dissemination of TCIM research [21].
Preprints are scholarly manuscripts posted on public servers often before formal peer review [22]. Preprints have been gaining traction since the COVID-19 pandemic as a means to rapidly disseminate research findings to the scientific community, and the public, providing immediate access to the latest research developments [23,24]. Preprints enhance the visibility and transparency of research by allowing scientists to read, comment on, and critique the work prior to formal journal publication [25,26]. This informal peer review process can lead to improvements in the study, and the manuscript, as authors can receive feedback and consider revisions outside of the peer review process which takes place within a peer-reviewed journal [26]. While some researchers have expressed hesitancy or lack experience in posting preprints, a recent survey has reported that many researchers are increasingly using the preprint process to disseminate their work more rapidly [27].
In the context of TCIM research, preprints facilitate quicker dissemination, allow a broader access to research findings, and may help overcome funding-related access issues for other researchers to access current TCIM research (e.g., exorbitant journal article processing fees) [28]. The open access nature of preprints allows for greater scrutiny and input from a diverse audience, potentially improving the methodological quality of TCIM research [26]. Additionally, the transparency of preprints can help counteract bias by making the entire research process visible, from initial findings to final publication [29]. This increased openness and the potential for early feedback make preprints a valuable tool for advancing the credibility and reliability of TCIM research.
As interest in preprinting practice increases, it is crucial to assess TCIM research that is being posted on preprint servers. A research method known as bibliometric analysis involves the statistical assessment of a subset of publications, within a given field, and can be used to facilitate an improved understanding of research characteristics and impact [3032]. Although bibliometric analyses of peer-reviewed publications in the field of TCIM have been performed previously [3335], and a scoping review of all TCIM-related bibliometric analyses is currently underway as described in a review protocol [36]. To date, to the best of our knowledge, no studies have comprehensively explored the characteristics of TCIM preprints. Thus, the objective of this protocol was to design a study to conduct a bibliometric analysis to identify the quantity and characteristics of preprints posted on TCIM research.
1. Open science statement
The protocol for the study has been registered on the Open Science Framework [37]. All resulting data generated from this study will be made available on Open Science Framework. The final manuscript will be preprinted prior to being submitted to a peer-reviewed journal.
2. Research
To conduct a bibliometric analysis to identify the quantity and characteristics of preprints posted on the topic of TCIM.
3. Study design
A bibliometric analysis focusing on preprints in TCIM research will be conducted. Bibliometric analysis will involve quantitatively evaluating academic literature to discern patterns, impacts, and trends within this particular field.
4. Data sources
Preprints will be sourced from selected preprint servers listed on the Accelerating Science and Publication in Biology (ASAPBio) preprint server directory [38].
5. Time frame
The analysis will cover all TCIM research preprints posted from each included preprint servers’ inception to present.
6. Search strategy, and inclusion and exclusion criteria
Preprint servers on the ASAPBio preprint directory will be screened to check whether they have subject area filters for TCIM categories (e.g., traditional medicine, complementary medicine, and integrative medicine). The preprint servers will be screened independently and in duplicate, and in accordance with search filters that contain TCIM-related subject areas. The search strategy will involve the inclusion of all preprints located across any preprint servers with TCIM-related subject areas to minimize the arbitrary selection of TCIM preprints. All eligible TCIM-related preprints of any language, regardless of whether they belong to additional subject area filters, will be eligible for data extraction. As such, TCIM-related preprints posted on preprint servers without TCIM subject area filters, in addition to non-TCIM related preprints on eligible servers will be excluded from the study. Based on previously published work, this decision was made for practical reasons, due to the challenging nature of manually categorizing preprint topics as belonging to TCIM research areas [4].
7. Data extraction and analysis
The following data will be extracted from each eligible preprint server (as stated by the ASAPbio preprint server directory): preprint server and URLs, preprint server’s disciplinary scope, ownership type, screening processes, external content indexing, permanence of content, preservation of content, and commenting. In addition, the number of TCIM-related preprints yielded will be noted, and which TCIM-related term each preprint server uses for their search filter (e.g., integrative medicine and complementary medicine).
The following data will be extracted from each eligible preprint: preprint server, title of preprint, DOI, preprint posted date (for all versions), status of preprint (e.g., under review in a journal, and published in a journal), journal of final publication (if applicable), final publication date (if applicable), type of preprint (e.g., primary research, or a review), abstract of preprint, authors, author affiliation(s), country of corresponding author, funders, number of views, number of downloads, number of comments, number of citations, number of versions, and keywords.
Microsoft Excel will be used to collect data and generate descriptive statistics summarizing the bibliometric characteristics of TCIM research preprints including counts, percentages, means, and medians. These statistics will be used to identify trends in the collected data.
The objective of this protocol for the study to conduct a bibliometric analysis was to identify the quantity and characteristics of preprints posted on the topic of TCIM research. To our knowledge, only a few bibliometric analyses have been performed on preprints in other specialties of medicine and health; 1 example is a bibliometric analysis of preprints on dentistry topics [39]. The paucity of bibliometric analyses of preprints may be attributed to the existence of numerous preprint servers making the process of collecting, combining, and cleaning relevant bibliometric data across these platforms both challenging and time-consuming. Furthermore, standard bibliometric software commonly used for data exported from bibliographic databases (e.g., Scopus, and Web of Science) are generally not compatible with preprint servers. In addition, a necessary consideration is that some authors will not preprint their work due to the policies of the journal to which they intend to submit their manuscript. Thus, even authors who have an interest and support preprinting may choose not to do so. Sherpa Romeo is an online resource that summarizes the preprinting policies of different peer-reviewed journals [40].
Analysis of the preprints will reveal which TCIM topics are more common, provide insights into what modalities have the highest research activity and interest. Preprints serve as a valuable resource for disseminating research findings quickly and openly, potentially addressing barriers such as limited access to funding for research and bias against TCIM practices. By providing a platform for rapid dissemination and feedback, preprints enhance transparency, collaboration, and innovation in TCIM research.
All articles will be included that meet the inclusion criteria for the study since each preprint server’s inception, therefore, the study will represent a comprehensive coverage of preprints. The analysis will also capture the characteristics of all preprints posted regardless of publication language, and this will further broaden the scope of TCIM research. However, the analysis will rely on preprints available on specific preprint servers that have TCIM subject area filters, which may not provide a comprehensive view of all posted TCIM preprints in existence. Despite this limitation, selecting only preprint servers that have TCIM subject area filters will ensure that all preprints included in this study are TCIM-related and will eliminate the need for arbitrary categorization of preprints as TCIM related. Another limitation is that potential bias in preprint server coverage may influence the representativeness of the sample. The types of preprints included in our study may be influenced by the fact that some journals have partnerships with specific preprint servers, resulting in the increased likelihood of manuscript submissions appearing on those servers.
In conclusion, this protocol outlines a comprehensive bibliometric analysis aimed at exploring the characteristics and impact of TCIM research preprints. By systematically analyzing preprints from select servers, with TCIM-related subject filters, the study seeks to illuminate trends in research activity, collaboration, and dissemination within the field. The findings may contribute valuable insights into the evolving landscape of TCIM research, highlighting areas of high interest and activity whilst also addressing potential barriers related to visibility and methodological rigor. Despite limitations regarding the representativeness of preprints from specific servers, the proposed study offers a cost-effective and inclusive approach to understanding the role of preprints in advancing TCIM research. Ultimately, this work aims to enhance the transparency, accessibility, and credibility of TCIM research, supporting its integration into broader scientific and healthcare conversations.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: JYN. Methodology: JYN. Formal investigation: JYN, AH, and IM. Data analysis: JYN, AH, and IM. Writing original draft: JYN. Writing - review and editing: JYN, AH, and IM.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.

Funding

None.

Ethical Statement

This research did not involve any human or animal experiments.

All relevant data are included in this manuscript.
  • [1] World Health Organization [Internet]. Traditional, complementary and integrative medicine: [cited 2024 Jun 11]. Available from: https://www.who.int/health-topics/traditional-complementary-and-integrative-medicine
  • [2] NCCIH [Internet]. Complementary, alternative, or integrative health: what’s in a name?: 2021 [cited 2024 Jun 11]. Available from: https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/complementary-alternative-or-integrative-health-whats-in-a-name
  • [3] Ng JY, Boon HS, Thompson AK, Whitehead CR. Making sense of “alternative”, “complementary”, “unconventional” and “integrative” medicine: exploring the terms and meanings through a textual analysis. BMC Complement Altern Med 2016;16:134. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • [4] Ng JY, Dhawan T, Dogadova E, Taghi-Zada Z, Vacca A, Wieland LS, et al. Operational definition of complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine derived from a systematic search. BMC Complement Med Ther 2022;22(1):104. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • [5] World Health Organization. WHO global report on traditional and complementary medicine. 2019, Geneva (Switzerland), World Health Organization, 2019.
  • [6] Astin JA. Why patients use alternative medicine: results of a national study. JAMA 1998;279(19):1548−53.ArticlePubMed
  • [7] Kristoffersen AE, Stub T, Musial F, Fønnebø V, Lillenes O, Norheim AJ. Prevalence and reasons for intentional use of complementary and alternative medicine as an adjunct to future visits to a medical doctor for chronic disease. BMC Complement Altern Med 2018;18(1):109. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • [8] McCaffrey AM, Pugh GF, O’Connor BB. Understanding patient preference for integrative medical care: results from patient focus groups. J Gen Intern Med 2007;22(11):1500−5.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • [9] Cheung AKL, Wong CHL, Ho L, Wu IXY, Ke FYT, Chung VCH. Methodological quality of systematic reviews on Chinese herbal medicine: a methodological survey. BMC Complement Med Ther 2022;22(1):48. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • [10] Raja M, Cramer H, Lee MS, Wieland LS, Ng JY. Addressing the challenges of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine research: an international perspective and proposed strategies moving forward. Perspect Integr Med 2024;3(2):86−97.ArticlePDF
  • [11] Ng JY, Wieland LS, Lee MS, Liu JP, Witt CM, Moher D, et al. Open science practices in traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine research: A path to enhanced transparency and collaboration. Integr Med Res 2024;13(2):101047. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • [12] Ng JY, Lee MS, Liu JP, Steel A, Wieland LS, Witt CM, et al. How can meta-research be used to evaluate and improve the quality of research in the field of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine? Integr Med Res 2024;13(3):101068. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • [13] Jonas WB. Building an evidence house: challenges and solutions to research in complementary and alternative medicine. Forsch Komplementarmed Klass Naturheilkd 2005;12(3):159−67.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • [14] Lewith G, Holgate S. CAM research and development. Complement Ther Nurs Midwifery 2000;6(1):19−24.ArticlePubMed
  • [15] Ernst E. Obstacles to research in complementary and alternative medicine. Med J Aust 2003;179(6):279−80.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • [16] Veziari Y, Leach MJ, Kumar S. Barriers to the conduct and application of research in complementary and alternative medicine: a systematic review. BMC Complement Altern Med 2017;17:166. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • [17] Fischer FH, Lewith G, Witt CM, Linde K, von Ammon K, Cardini F, et al. High prevalence but limited evidence in complementary and alternative medicine: guidelines for future research. BMC Complement Altern Med 2014;14:46. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • [18] Giordano J, Engebretson J, Garcia MK. Challenges to complementary and alternative medical research: focal issues influencing integration into a cancer care model. Integr Cancer Ther 2005;4(3):210−8.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • [19] Ahn AC, Nahin RL, Calabrese C, Folkman S, Kimbrough E, Shoham J, et al. Applying principles from complex systems to studying the efficacy of cam therapies. J Altern Complement Med 2010;16(9):1015−22.ArticlePubMedPMC
  • [20] Sarris J. Current challenges in appraising complementary medicine evidence. Med J Aust 2012;196(5):310−1.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • [21] Rosner AL [Internet]. Obstacles and barriers to CAM research. ChiroOrg: 2000 [cited 2024 Jun 11]. Available from: https://chiro.org/alt_med_abstracts/CAM/Rosner.shtml
  • [22] Berg JM, Bhalla N, Bourne PE, Chalfie M, Drubin DG, Fraser JS, et al. Preprints for the life sciences. Science 2016;352(6288):899−901.ArticlePubMed
  • [23] Owens B [Intenret]. The rise of preprints: University Affairs: 2022 [cited 2024 Jun 11]. Available from: https://universityaffairs.ca/features/feature-article/the-rise-of-preprints/
  • [24] Wang Z, Chen Y, Glänzel W. Preprints as accelerator of scholarly communication: an empirical analysis in mathematics. J Inform 2020;14(4):101097. Article
  • [25] Sarabipour S, Debat HJ, Emmott E, Burgess SJ, Schwessinger B, Hensel Z. On the value of preprints: an early career researcher perspective. PLoS Biol 2019;17(2):e3000151. ArticlePubMedPMC
  • [26] Chiarelli A, Johnson R, Pinfield S, Richens E. Preprints and scholarly communication: an exploratory qualitative study of adoption, practices, drivers and barriers. F1000 Res 2019;8:971. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • [27] Ng JY, Chow V, Santoro LJ, Armond AC, Pirshahid SE, Cobey KD, et al. An international, cross-sectional survey of preprinting attitudes among biomedical researchers. F1000Res 2024;13:6. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • [28] Flanagin A, Fontanarosa PB, Bauchner H. Preprints involving medical research—do the benefits outweigh the challenges? JAMA 2020;324(18):1840−3.ArticlePubMed
  • [29] Verma AA, Detsky AS. Preprints: a timely counterbalance for big data-driven research. J Gen Intern Med 2020;35(7):2179−81.ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • [30] Pritchard A. Statistical bibliography or bibliometrics. J Document 1969;25(4):348−9.
  • [31] Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, de Rijcke S, Rafols I. Bibliometrics: the Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature 2015;520(7548):429−31.ArticlePubMedPDF
  • [32] Price DDS. A general theory of bibliometric and other cumulative advantage processes. J Am Soc Info Sci 1976;27(5):292−306.Article
  • [33] Fu J-Y, Zhang X, Zhao Y-H, Huang M-H, Chen DZ. Bibliometric analysis of complementary and alternative medicine research over three decades. Scientometrics 2011;88:617−26.ArticlePDF
  • [34] Brodin Danell JA, Danell R, Vuolanto P. Fifty years of complementary and alternative medicine (cam) - a bibliometric analysis of publication activity and general content of the publications. J Scientometric Res 2020;9(3):268−76.Article
  • [35] Ng JY. Insight into the characteristics of research published in traditional, complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine journals: a bibliometric analysis. BMC Complement Med Ther 2021;21(1):185. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • [36] Ng JY, Liu H, Shah AQ, Wieland LS, Moher D. Characteristics of bibliometric analyses of the complementary, alternative, and integrative medicine literature: a scoping review protocol. F1000Res 2023;12:164. ArticlePubMedPMCPDF
  • [37] Ng JY, Lin BX, Abdella S, Abebe M, Tao I, Cramer H. [Internet]. A Bibliometric analysis of traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine research preprints: OSF: 2024 [cited 2024 Jun 11]. Available from: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/4MSBC
  • [38] ASAPbio [Intenret]. List of preprint servers: policies and practices across platforms: [cited 2024 Jun 11]. Available from: https://asapbio.org/preprint-servers
  • [39] Mirmohammadi H, Kolahi J, Khandan A. Bibliometric analysis of dental preprints which published in 2022. Dent Hypotheses 2023;14(1):1−2.Article
  • [40] Jisc [Internet]: Sherpa Romeo: [cited 2024 Sep 15]. Available from: https://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/

Figure & Data

References

    Citations

    Citations to this article as recorded by  

      • PubReader PubReader
      • ePub LinkePub Link
      • Cite
        Download Citation
        Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

        Format:
        • RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
        • BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software
        Include:
        • Citation for the content below
        A Protocol for a Bibliometric Analysis of Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine Research Preprints
        Perspect Integr Med. 2024;3(3):172-176.   Published online October 23, 2024
        Close
      • XML DownloadXML Download
      Related articles
      A Protocol for a Bibliometric Analysis of Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine Research Preprints
      A Protocol for a Bibliometric Analysis of Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine Research Preprints

      Perspect Integr Med : Perspectives on Integrative Medicine
      TOP