Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature

Author:

Carneiro Clarissa F. D.ORCID,Queiroz Victor G. S.,Moulin Thiago C.ORCID,Carvalho Carlos A. M.ORCID,Haas Clarissa B.,Rayêe Danielle,Henshall David E.,De-Souza Evandro A.ORCID,Amorim Felippe E.ORCID,Boos Flávia Z.ORCID,Guercio Gerson D.,Costa Igor R.,Hajdu Karina L.ORCID,van Egmond Lieve,Modrák MartinORCID,Tan Pedro B.ORCID,Abdill Richard J.ORCID,Burgess Steven J.ORCID,Guerra Sylvia F. S.,Bortoluzzi Vanessa T.ORCID,Amaral Olavo B.ORCID

Abstract

AbstractBackgroundPreprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily measurable is completeness of reporting, as transparency can improve the reader’s ability to independently interpret data and reproduce findings.MethodsIn this observational study, we initially compared independent samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in PubMed-indexed journals in 2016 using a quality of reporting questionnaire. After that, we performed paired comparisons between preprints from bioRxiv to their own peer-reviewed versions in journals.ResultsPeer-reviewed articles had, on average, higher quality of reporting than preprints, although the difference was small, with absolute differences of 5.0% [95% CI 1.4, 8.6] and 4.7% [95% CI 2.4, 7.0] of reported items in the independent samples and paired sample comparison, respectively. There were larger differences favoring peer-reviewed articles in subjective ratings of how clearly titles and abstracts presented the main findings and how easy it was to locate relevant reporting information. Changes in reporting from preprints to peer-reviewed versions did not correlate with the impact factor of the publication venue or with the time lag from bioRxiv to journal publication.ConclusionsOur results suggest that, on average, publication in a peer-reviewed journal is associated with improvement in quality of reporting. They also show that quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is within a similar range as that of peer-reviewed articles, albeit slightly lower on average, supporting the idea that preprints should be considered valid scientific contributions.

Publisher

Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

Reference43 articles.

1. Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints

2. Amaral, O. B. (2018) ‘Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles – a crowdsourced initiative’, ASAPbio blog. Available at: http://asapbio.org/amaral-quality. (Accessed: 14 January 2019).

3. Anaya, J. (2016) ‘bioRxiv vs. PeerJ Preprints’, Medium. Available at: https://medium.com/@OmnesRes/biorxiv-vs-peerj-preprints-f7589141c532 (Accessed: 14 January 2019).

4. Who's Afraid of Peer Review?

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3