Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature.
Clarissa F D CarneiroVictor G S QueirozThiago C MoulinCarlos A M CarvalhoClarissa B HaasDanielle RayêeDavid E HenshallEvandro A De-SouzaFelippe E AmorimFlávia Z BoosGerson D GuercioIgor R CostaKarina L HajduLieve van EgmondMartin ModrákPedro B TanRichard J AbdillSteven J BurgessSylvia F S GuerraVanessa T BortoluzziOlavo B AmaralPublished in: Research integrity and peer review (2020)
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.