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

Carneiro, C. F. D.; Queiroz, V. G. S.; Moulin, T. C.; Carvalho, C. A. M.; Haas, C. B.; Rayee, D.; Henshall, D. E.; De-Souza, E. A.; Espinelli, F.; Boos, F. Z.; Guercio, G. D.; Costa, I. R.; Hajdu, K. L.; Modrak, M.; Tan, P. B.; Burgess, S. J.; Guerra, S. F. S.; Bortoluzzi, V. T.; Amaral, O. B.

doi:10.1101/581892

bioRxiv · 10.1101/581892

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

Carneiro, C. F. D.·Queiroz, V. G. S.·Moulin, T. C.·Carvalho, C. A. M.·Haas, C. B.·Rayee, D.·Henshall, D. E.·De-Souza, E. A.·Espinelli, F.·Boos, F. Z.·Guercio, G. D.·Costa, I. R.·Hajdu, K. L.·Modrak, M.·Tan, P. B.·Burgess, S. J.·Guerra, S. F. S.·Bortoluzzi, V. T.·Amaral, O. B.

View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

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.

Source connections

Published article ↗

Explore related subjects

scientific communication and education Preprint

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeX RIS

Carneiro, C. F. D., Queiroz, V. G. S., Moulin, T. C., Carvalho, C. A. M., Haas, C. B., Rayee, D., Henshall, D. E., De-Souza, E. A., Espinelli, F., Boos, F. Z., Guercio, G. D., Costa, I. R., Hajdu, K. L., Modrak, M., Tan, P. B., Burgess, S. J., Guerra, S. F. S., Bortoluzzi, V. T., Amaral, O. B.. 2019-03-22. Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature. https://doi.org/10.1101/581892

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related preprints

bioRxiv2026

Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction

Large Language Models (LLMs) have emerged as promising tools for assisting researchers in automating and accelerating the synthesis of literature reviews. However, their reliability is a significant concern due to issues like factual inaccuracies and hallucinations. The key question is whether LLMs can reliably provide comprehensive, up-to-date overviews and analyses. This study evaluates the performance of three leading LLMs (OpenAI's ChatGPT, Google's Gemini, and DeepSeek) on the complex task of generating a comprehensive survey paper on deep learning for cancer Drug Response Prediction (DRP). By testing both standard and Deep Research (DR) / Deep Think (DT) modes of LLMs with prompts of varying detail, this paper assesses key academic dimensions, including reference management, content quality, and analytical depth. Key findings reveal that while DR modes of LLMs significantly improve reliability by eliminating hallucinations, performance variations exist across models and prompts. A trade-off between reference quantity and integration quality was observed, and even the best-performing models lacked the analytical depth of human experts, often requiring extensive human supervision. The study concludes that LLMs currently serve as powerful assistive tools but still cannot replace the critical validation and synthesis provided by human researchers. Choosing the best LLM to use depends on the task in hand, while several strategies can be implemented to improve the produced output.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2019

Lower limb chronic edema management program: Perspectives of disengaged patients on challenges, enablers and barriers to program attendance and adherence

BackgroundChronic edema (CO) is a progressive, physically disfiguring and currently incurable condition. A multifaceted program has been recommended to manage the swelling. However, there is little evidence investigating patients perspectives following the program, particularly for those who have poor adherence or are disengaged.\n\nAimTo investigate the perceived challenges faced by disengaged participants with lower limb CO by identifying their enablers and barriers to participating in a Physiotherapy CO program.\n\nMethodAn exploratory qualitative approach was used. A purposive sampling strategy was adopted to recruit participants. Those with more than three months swelling and who had low adherence or attendance (disengaged) to the CO program were invited to participate. Semi-structured interviews with six participants from a CO clinic in a tertiary hospital were conducted. Data was thematically analyzed and findings in terms of enablers and barriers were subsequently reflected in the light of a theoretical framework.\n\nResultsAll six participants were morbidly obese (BMI 47 {+/-} 4 kg/m2) with multiple chronic comorbidities. Enablers and barriers detected included physical, psychological and social factors that interplay to present multidimensional challenges that influence the participants adjustment to managing their CO. For the disengaged participants in this study, their under-managed lower limb CO was a progression towards being housebound and having a gradually increasing level of disability.\n\nConclusionChronic edema, if left unmanaged, can have a profound debilitating impact on the individual permanently. Understanding the challenges faced by patients with lower limb CO has implications for developing a more patient-centered multidisciplinary approach to clinical practice and suggests the need for further research.

scientific communication and education↗

bioRxiv2019

Genetic research at the intersection of gender identity, sexual orientation, and mental health: community attitudes and recommendations for researchers

Biological sex is an important factor in mental health, and a non-binary view of how variation in sex and gender influence mental health represents a new research frontier that may yield new insights. The recent acceleration of research into sexual orientation, gender identity, and mental health has generally been conducted without sufficient understanding of the opinions of sexual and gender minorities (SGM) toward this research. We surveyed 768 individuals, with an enrichment of LGBTQ+ stakeholders, for their opinions regarding genetic research of SGM and mental health. We found that the key predictors of attitudes toward genetic research specifically on SGM are 1) general attitudes toward genetic and mental health research 2) tolerance of SGM and associated behaviors 3) non-cisgender stakeholder status and 4) age of the respondent. Non-heterosexual stakeholder status was significantly associated with increased willingness to participate in genetic research if a biological basis for gender identity were discovered. We also found that non-stakeholders with a low tolerance for SGM indicated their SGM views would be positively updated if science showed a biological basis for their behaviors and identities. These findings represent an important first step in understanding and engaging the LGBTQ+ stakeholder community in the context of genetic research.

scientific communication and education↗