ArticleResearch integrity and peer review2020
Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature.
Article in Research integrity and peer review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
44 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Building a synthesis-ready research ecosystem: fostering collaboration and open science to accelerate biomedical translation.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Pooled it
- Asthma and risk of infection, hospitalization, ICU admission and mortality from COVID-19: Systematic review and meta-analysis.The Journal of asthma : official journal of the Association for the Care of Asthma · 2022Pooled it
- Utility of Routine Laboratory Biomarkers to Detect COVID-19: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Viruses · 2021Pooled it
- Peer replication : A new tier of science built on reproducibility.EMBO reports · 2026Article
- Comparison of preprints and their corresponding peer-reviewed publications in the health field: a scoping review.Research integrity and peer review · 2026Review
- Can I trust this paper?Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2025Review
- The academic impact of Open Science: a scoping review.Royal Society open science · 2025Review
- Scientific dissemination in CSP: importance, advances, and challenges.Cadernos de saude publica · 2025Article
- How the pandemic affected psychological research.Royal Society open science · 2024Article
- Peer review: the imprimatur of scientific publication.Experimental physiology · 2024Article
- Phase 1 of the National Institutes of Health Preprint Pilot: Testing the viability of making preprints discoverable in PubMed Central and PubMed.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024Article
- Comparison of effect estimates between preprints and peer-reviewed journal articles of COVID-19 trials.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers.F1000Research · 2024Article
- Comments about comments: peer review and the amazing editorial board ofBrain communications · 2024Article
- Comparing the prevalence of statistical reporting inconsistencies in COVID-19 preprints and matched controls: a registered report.Royal Society open science · 2023Article
- Completeness and consistency of primary outcome reporting in COVID-19 publications in the early pandemic phase: a descriptive study.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
- Predicting substantive biomedical citations without full text.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2023Article
- Designing, conducting, and reporting reproducible animal experiments.The Journal of endocrinology · 2023Review
- Perspectives on scientific error.Royal Society open science · 2023Review
- Using an expert survey and user feedback to construct PRECHECK: A checklist to evaluate preprints on COVID-19 and beyond.F1000Research · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
21 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
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 reader's 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.