Clarissa França Dias Carneiro
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
Co-Authors: Clarissa F. D. Carneiro, Victor G. S. Queiroz, Thiago C. Moulin, Carlos A. M. Carvalho, Clarissa B. Haas, Danielle Rayêe, David E. Henshall, Evandro A. De-Souza, Felippe Espinelli, Flávia Z. Boos, Gerson D. Guercio, Igor R. Costa, Karina L. Hajdu, Lieve van Egmond, Martin Modrák, Pedro B. Tan, Richard Abdill, Steven J. Burgess, Sylvia F. S. Guerra, Vanessa T. Bortoluzzi, Olavo B. Amaral
Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature
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. In this observational study, we first compared random samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in PubMed-indexed journals in 2016 using a quality of reporting questionnaire. We found that peer-reviewed articles had, on average, higher quality of reporting than preprints, although this difference was small (5.2%, 95%CI [1.6, 8.9]). This difference was consistent across articles using different biological models (in vitro, humans and non-human vertebrates). In a second stage, to assess peer-review effects more directly, we are comparing the selected preprints to their own peer-reviewed published versions. Data collection is ongoing for this stage and is due to finish in August 2019.