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

Kód výsledku v 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>

Výsledek na webu

<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>

Jazyk výsledku

angličtina

Název v původním jazyce

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

Popis výsledku v původním jazyce

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.

Název v anglickém jazyce

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

Popis výsledku anglicky

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.

Druh

J_imp - Článek v periodiku v databázi Web of Science

CEP obor

—

OECD FORD obor

10620 - Other biological topics

Projekt

—

Návaznosti

I - Institucionalni podpora na dlouhodoby koncepcni rozvoj vyzkumne organizace

Rok uplatnění

2020

Kód důvěrnosti údajů

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

Název periodika

RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND PEER REVIEW

ISSN

2058-8615

e-ISSN

—

Svazek periodika

5

Číslo periodika v rámci svazku

1

Stát vydavatele periodika

GB - Spojené království Velké Británie a Severního Irska

Počet stran výsledku

19

Strana od-do

16

Kód UT WoS článku

000595283600001

EID výsledku v databázi Scopus

—