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

Result code in IS VaVaI

<a href="https://www.isvavai.cz/riv?ss=detail&h=RIV%2F61388971%3A_____%2F20%3A00537906" target="_blank" >RIV/61388971:_____/20:00537906 - isvavai.cz</a>

Result on the web

<a href="https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-020-00101-3" target="_blank" >https://researchintegrityjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41073-020-00101-3</a>

DOI - Digital Object Identifier

<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-020-00101-3" target="_blank" >10.1186/s41073-020-00101-3</a>

Result language

angličtina

Original language name

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

Original language description

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.

Czech name

—

Czech description

—

Type

J_imp - Article in a specialist periodical, which is included in the Web of Science database

CEP classification

—

OECD FORD branch

10620 - Other biological topics

Project

—

Continuities

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Publication year

2020

Confidentiality

S - Úplné a pravdivé údaje o projektu nepodléhají ochraně podle zvláštních právních předpisů

Name of the periodical

RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND PEER REVIEW

ISSN

2058-8615

e-ISSN

—

Volume of the periodical

5

Issue of the periodical within the volume

1

Country of publishing house

GB - UNITED KINGDOM

Number of pages

19

Pages from-to

16

UT code for WoS article

000595283600001

EID of the result in the Scopus database

—