Guercio, G. D. | bioRxiv Science

bioRxiv2019

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

BackgroundPreprint 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 readers ability to independently interpret data and reproduce findings. MethodsIn 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. ResultsPeer-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. ConclusionsOur 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.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2018

Lack of correlation between number of neurons and behavioral performance in Swiss mice

Neuronal number varies by several orders of magnitude across species, and has been proposed to predict cognitive capability across species. Remarkably, numbers of neurons vary across individual mice by a factor of 2 or more. We directly addressed the question of whether there is a relationship between performance in behavioral tests and the number of neurons in functionally relevant structures in the mouse brain. Naive Swiss mice went through a battery of behavioral tasks designed to measure cognitive, motor and olfactory skills. We estimated the number of neurons in different brain regions (cerebral cortex, hippocampus, olfactory bulb, cerebellum and remaining areas) and crossed the two datasets to test the a priori hypothesis of correlation between cognitive abilities and numbers of neurons. As previous evidence indicates that environmental enrichment may increase neurogenesis and improve neuronal survival, we added a control group that did not undergo cognitive testing to rule out the possibility that our test battery could alter the neuronal number. We found that behavioral testing did not change numbers of neurons in the cerebral cortex and in the hippocampus. Surprisingly, performance in the behavioral tasks did not correlate strongly with number of neurons in any of the brain regions studied. Our results show that whereas neuronal number is a good predictor of cognitive skills across species, it is not a predictor of cognitive, sensory or motor ability across individuals within a species, which suggests that other factors are more relevant for explaining cognitive differences between individuals of the same species.

neuroscience↗