Dataset Information

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, 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.

SUBMITTER: Carneiro CFD

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

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

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

Carneiro Clarissa F D CFD Queiroz Victor G S VGS Moulin Thiago C TC Carvalho Carlos A M CAM Haas Clarissa B CB Rayêe Danielle D Henshall David E DE De-Souza Evandro A EA Amorim Felippe E FE Boos Flávia Z FZ Guercio Gerson D GD Costa Igor R IR Hajdu Karina L KL van Egmond Lieve L Modrák Martin M Tan Pedro B PB Abdill Richard J RJ Burgess Steven J SJ Guerra Sylvia F S SFS Bortoluzzi Vanessa T VT Amaral Olavo B OB

Research integrity and peer review 20201201 1

<h4>Background</h4>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.<h4>Methods</h4>In this observational study, we initially compared independent samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in Pub ...[more]

PMID: 33292815

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectiveWe undertook this investigation to characterize conflict of interest (COI) policies of biomedical journals with respect to authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, and to ascertain what information about COI disclosures is publicly available.MethodsWe performed a cross-sectional survey of a convenience sample of 135 editors of peer-reviewed biomedical journals that publish original research. We chose an international selection of general and specialty medical journals that publish in English. Selection was based on journal impact factor, and the recommendations of experts in the field. We developed and pilot tested a 3-part web-based survey. The survey included questions about the presence of specific policies for authors, peer-reviewers, and editors, specific restrictions on authors, peer-reviewers, and editors based on COI, and the public availability of these disclosures. Editors were contacted a minimum of 3 times.ResultsThe response rate for the survey was 91 (67%) of 135, and 85 (93%) of 91 journals reported having an author COI policy. Ten (11%) journals reported that they restrict author submissions based on COI (e.g., drug company authors' papers on their products are not accepted). While 77% report collecting COI information on all author submissions, only 57% publish all author disclosures. A minority of journals report having a specific policy on peer-reviewer 46% (42/91) or editor COI 40% (36/91); among these, 25% and 31% of journals state that they require recusal of peer-reviewers and editors if they report a COI. Only 3% of respondents publish COI disclosures of peer-reviewers, and 12% publish editor COI disclosures, while 11% and 24%, respectively, reported that this information is available upon request.ConclusionMany more journals have a policy regarding COI for authors than they do for peer-reviewers or editors. Even author COI policies are variable, depending on the type of manuscript submitted. The COI information that is collected by journals is often not published; the extent to which such "secret disclosure" may impact the integrity of the journal or the published work is not known.

Project description:BackgroundAlthough peer review is widely considered to be the most credible way of selecting manuscripts and improving the quality of accepted papers in scientific journals, there is little evidence to support its use. Our aim was to estimate the effects on manuscript quality of either adding a statistical peer reviewer or suggesting the use of checklists such as CONSORT or STARD to clinical reviewers or both.Methodology and principal findingsInterventions were defined as 1) the addition of a statistical reviewer to the clinical peer review process, and 2) suggesting reporting guidelines to reviewers; with "no statistical expert" and "no checklist" as controls. The two interventions were crossed in a 2x2 balanced factorial design including original research articles consecutively selected, between May 2004 and March 2005, by the Medicina Clinica (Barc) editorial committee. We randomized manuscripts to minimize differences in terms of baseline quality and type of study (intervention, longitudinal, cross-sectional, others). Sample-size calculations indicated that 100 papers provide an 80% power to test a 55% standardized difference. We specified the main outcome as the increment in quality of papers as measured on the Goodman Scale. Two blinded evaluators rated the quality of manuscripts at initial submission and final post peer review version. Of the 327 manuscripts submitted to the journal, 131 were accepted for further review, and 129 were randomized. Of those, 14 that were lost to follow-up showed no differences in initial quality to the followed-up papers. Hence, 115 were included in the main analysis, with 16 rejected for publication after peer review. 21 (18.3%) of the 115 included papers were interventions, 46 (40.0%) were longitudinal designs, 28 (24.3%) cross-sectional and 20 (17.4%) others. The 16 (13.9%) rejected papers had a significantly lower initial score on the overall Goodman scale than accepted papers (difference 15.0, 95% CI: 4.6-24.4). The effect of suggesting a guideline to the reviewers had no effect on change in overall quality as measured by the Goodman scale (0.9, 95% CI: -0.3-+2.1). The estimated effect of adding a statistical reviewer was 5.5 (95% CI: 4.3-6.7), showing a significant improvement in quality.Conclusions and significanceThis prospective randomized study shows the positive effect of adding a statistical reviewer to the field-expert peers in improving manuscript quality. We did not find a statistically significant positive effect by suggesting reviewers use reporting guidelines.

Project description:BackgroundTransgender community is marginalized and under-researched. Analysis of peer-reviewed literature in transgender health is needed to better understand health needs and human rights of transgender people. Therefore, the aim of this study was to analyze global research activity in transgender health published in peer-reviewed journals.MethodsPeer-reviewed documents in transgender health were retrieved using Scopus database. VOSviewer was used to map frequently encountered author keywords while ArcGIS 10.1 was used to map the geographical distribution of the retrieved documents. Most active countries, institutions, and authors were presented. The study period was set from 1900 to 2017.ResultsIn total, 5772 peer-reviewed documents were obtained. English (5008; 86.8%) was the most frequently encountered language. A dramatic increase in the number of publications was seen in the last decade. The retrieved documents had an average of 12.1 citations per document and h-index of 92. Most frequently encountered author keywords were Human immunodeficiency virus infection and acquired immune deficiency syndrome (HIV/AIDS), mental health, and discrimination. Authors from 80 different countries contributed to publishing the retrieved documents. Publications originated mainly from Northern America, certain European countries, Australia, and Brazil. Professor Gooren, L.J.G. was the most active author in this field with 104 (1.88%) publications. Top active authors were in the fields of endocrinology, plastic surgery, psychiatry/psychology, public health, and sexology. Five of the top ten active authors were from the USA, three were from the Netherlands, and two were from Belgium. The most active institution was the VU University Medical Center (Netherlands) (184; 3.2%) followed by the University of California, San Francisco (USA) (157; 2.7%). The International Journal of Transgenderism was most active (284; 4.9%) in publishing articles in transgender health. However, documents published in the American Journal of Public Health had the highest impact with 53.5 citations per article.ConclusionThere was a noticeable growth of research in transgender health in the last decade. Researchers from different world regions need to get involved in health and human rights research of transgender community.

Project description:BackgroundThe health of migrants has become an important issue in global health and foreign policy. Assessing the current status of research activity and identifying gaps in global migration health (GMH) is an important step in mapping the evidence-base and on advocating health needs of migrants and mobile populations. The aim of this study was to analyze globally published peer-reviewed literature in GMH.MethodsA bibliometric analysis methodology was used. The Scopus database was used to retrieve documents in peer-reviewed journals in GMH for the study period from 2000 to 2016. A group of experts in GMH developed the needed keywords and validated the final search strategy.ResultsThe number of retrieved documents was 21,457. Approximately one third (6878; 32.1%) of the retrieved documents were published in the last three years of the study period. In total, 5451 (25.4%) documents were about refugees and asylum seekers, while 1328 (6.2%) were about migrant workers, 440 (2.1%) were about international students, 679 (3.2%) were about victims of human trafficking/smuggling, 26 (0.1%) were about patients' mobility across international borders, and the remaining documents were about unspecified categories of migrants. The majority of the retrieved documents (10,086; 47.0%) were in psychosocial and mental health domain, while 2945 (13.7%) documents were in infectious diseases, 6819 (31.8%) documents were in health policy and systems, 2759 (12.8%) documents were in maternal and reproductive health, and 1918 (8.9%) were in non-communicable diseases. The contribution of authors and institutions in Asian countries, Latin America, Africa, Middle East, and Eastern European countries was low. Literature in GMH represents the perspectives of high-income migrant destination countries.ConclusionOur heat map of research output shows that despite the ever-growing prominence of human mobility across the globe, and Sustainable Development Goals of leaving no one behind, research output on migrants' health is not consistent with the global migration pattern. A stronger evidence base is needed to enable authorities to make evidence-informed decisions on migration health policy and practice. Research collaboration and networks should be encouraged to prioritize research in GMH.

Dataset Information

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

Publications

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

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets