RT Journal Article
SR Electronic
T1 Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature
JF bioRxiv
FD Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory
SP 581892
DO 10.1101/581892
A1 Clarissa F. D. Carneiro
A1 Victor G. S. Queiroz
A1 Thiago C. Moulin
A1 Carlos A. M. Carvalho
A1 Clarissa B. Haas
A1 Danielle Rayêe
A1 David E. Henshall
A1 Evandro A. De-Souza
A1 Felippe E. Amorim
A1 Flávia Z. Boos
A1 Gerson D. Guercio
A1 Igor R. Costa
A1 Karina L. Hajdu
A1 Lieve van Egmond
A1 Martin Modrák
A1 Pedro B. Tan
A1 Richard J. Abdill
A1 Steven J. Burgess
A1 Sylvia F. S. Guerra
A1 Vanessa T. Bortoluzzi
A1 Olavo B. Amaral
YR 2020
UL http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2020/10/08/581892.abstract
AB 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 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.Conclusions Our 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.Competing Interest StatementO.B.A. and R.J.A. are voluntary ambassadors for ASAPbio, a scientist-driven non-profit promoting transparency and innovation in life science communication.