Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature
- PDF / 1,749,725 Bytes
- 19 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 110 Downloads / 181 Views
(2020) 5:16
RESEARCH
Research Integrity and Peer Review
Open Access
Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature Clarissa F. D. Carneiro1* , Victor G. S. Queiroz1, Thiago C. Moulin1, Carlos A. M. Carvalho2,3,4, Clarissa B. Haas5, Danielle Rayêe6, David E. Henshall7, Evandro A. De-Souza1, Felippe E. Amorim1, Flávia Z. Boos8, Gerson D. Guercio9, Igor R. Costa1, Karina L. Hajdu6, Lieve van Egmond10, Martin Modrák11, Pedro B. Tan6, Richard J. Abdill12, Steven J. Burgess13, Sylvia F. S. Guerra4,14,15, Vanessa T. Bortoluzzi5 and Olavo B. Amaral1
Abstract Background: Preprint 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. Methods: In 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. Results: Peer-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 peerreviewed 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. (Continued on next page)
* Correspondence: [email protected] 1 Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis, Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, RJ 21941-902, Brazil Full list of author information is available at the end of the article © The Author(s). 2020 Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a
Data Loading...
