A Bibliometric Analysis of Preprints in Traditional, Complementary, and Integrative Medicine Research
Listed in
This article is not in any list yet, why not save it to one of your lists.Abstract
Background
Traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) encompasses a wide range of healthcare practices and is of growing global interest. Preprints, scientific manuscripts posted prior to formal peer review, offer opportunities to address challenges in TCIM research, including limited funding, publication delays, and concerns about methodological quality. By increasing the visibility and speed of research dissemination, preprints may help strengthen the TCIM evidence base. This bibliometric analysis examined the characteristics of TCIM-related preprints posted on servers with TCIM subject filters.
Methods
Preprints were sourced from the ASAPbio preprint server directory, limited to servers with TCIM-related categories. Data extraction (June 4, 2024 to January 14, 2025) included title, DOI, abstract, authors, affiliations, preprint posted date, publication journal (if applicable), publication date, preprint type, keywords, number of versions, citations, comments, and funding information. Author geographic distribution, collaboration networks, and key research topics were also analyzed.
Results
Between 2012 and 2024, 1,980 TCIM preprints were posted across 11 servers. Research Square hosted the most preprints, and China contributed the highest number. Among the 612 preprints later published in journals, BMC Trials was the most common destination, with a median time of 4.89 months from preprint to publication. Funding information was often missing, but when reported, the National Natural Science Foundation of China was the most frequent sponsor. Overall, citation and comment activity was low. Wellcome Open Research had the highest average citations and comments per preprint among all servers.
Conclusion
This study provides the first in-depth analysis of TCIM preprints, revealing active research areas and important gaps in preprint usage, geographical representation, and post-publication engagement. Findings highlight opportunities to improve transparency and research dissemination in TCIM through more consistent preprint practices and tracking.
