bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Tan, P. B.

Publications and source records attributed to Tan, P. B..

3 recordsLinked to original sources

Estimating the replicability of Brazilian biomedical science

Concerns over the replicability and reproducibility of published research have grown in many research fields, but empirical data to inform policies are still scarce. Biomedical research in Brazil expanded rapidly over the last three decades, with no systematic assessment of the replicability of its findings. With this in mind, we set up the Brazilian Reproducibility Initiative, a multicenter replication of published experiments from Brazilian science using three common experimental methods: the MTT assay, the reverse transcription polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) and the elevated plus maze (EPM). A total of 56 laboratories performed 143 replications of 56 experiments; of these, 90 replications of 45 experiments were considered valid by an independent committee. Replication rates for these experiments varied between 20 and 44% according to five predefined criteria. In median terms, ratios between group means were 58% lower in replications than in original experiments, while coefficients of variation were 82% higher. Effect size decrease was smaller for MTT experiments, original results with less variability and those considered more challenging to replicate, while t values for replications were positively correlated with researcher predictions about replicability, and negatively correlated with the rate of publications by the original articles last author. Deviations from preregistered protocols were very common in replications, most frequently due to reasons inherent to the experimental model or related to infrastructure and logistics. Our results highlight factors that limit the replicability of results published by researchers in Brazil and suggest ways by which this scenario can be improved.

scientific communication and education↗

Mapping the content of comments on bioRxiv and medRxiv preprints

IntroductionPreprints have been increasingly used in biomedical sciences, providing the opportunity for research to be publicly assessed before journal publication. With the increase in attention over preprints during the COVID-19 pandemic, we decided to assess the content of comments left on preprint platforms. MethodsPreprints posted on bioRxiv and medRxiv in 2020 were accessed through each platforms API, and a random sample of preprints that had received between 1 and 20 comments was analyzed. Comments were evaluated in triplicate by independent evaluators using an instrument that assessed their features and general content. Results7.3% of preprints received at least 1 comment during a mean follow-up of 7.5 months. Analyzed comments had a median size of 43 words. Criticisms, corrections or suggestions were the most prevalent type of content, followed by compliments or positive appraisals and questions. Most critical comments regarded interpretation, data collection and methodological design, while compliments were usually about relevance and implications. ConclusionsOnly a small percentage of preprints posted in 2020 in bioRxiv and medRxiv received comments in these platforms. When present, however, these comments address content that is similar to that analyzed by traditional peer review. A more precise taxonomy of peer review functions would be desirable to describe whether post-publication peer review fulfills these roles.

scientific communication and education↗

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↗