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

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, alth

SUBMITTER: Carneiro CFD 

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7706207 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Dec

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature