Most early COVID-19 preprints published on bioRxiv and medRxiv are reliable and trustworthy, says study
How preprints posted on bioRxiv.org and medRxiv.org compare with their published versions?
Preprinting, or the distribution of freely available papers prior to peer review, has been on the rise in the biosciences since 2013, including a spike during the COVID-19 outbreak, allowing timely research to be disseminated more quickly.
But what is the relationship between preprints and final peer-reviewed papers? Two new studies published in the open-access journal PLOS Biology today looked at how preprints on bioRxiv and medRxiv relate to their published editions in different ways.
During the first four months of the COVID-19 pandemic, one study led by Dr. Jonathon Coates of Queen Mary University of London manually checked over 180 preprints to their published versions.
The other study, conducted by Mr. David Nicholson of the University of Pennsylvania’s Perelman School of Medicine, looked at the links between over 18,000 bioRxiv preprints and their published versions using machine learning and textual analytics.
Since the beginning of preprinting in the sciences, there have been concerns about the quality of preprints.
“Approximately 40% of the early COVID-19 research was first shared as a preprint, according to Coates, “and these were used in policy and public health decisions.”
“Therefore, knowing the quality of these preprints is vital in having trust in science at a time when many are attempting to erode that trust”.
Coates and his colleagues evaluated all COVID-19 preprints posted and published throughout the first four months of the pandemic and discovered that over 83 percent of COVID and 93 percent of non-COVID-related life sciences publications do not change from their preprint to final published editions.
When Nicholson and colleagues compared the entire bioRxiv corpus to the final published versions, they discovered that many differences appear to be due to typesetting and the addition of supplementary materials; most manuscripts only underwent minor linguistic changes during the peer-review and publication process.
“Collectively, our studies both provide evidence supporting the reliability and use of preprints both during a global pandemic and for general scientific outputs,” says Dr. Casey Greene of the University of Colorado School of Medicine, a co-author on the Nicholson et al. paper, adding “Examining preprint-publication pairs provides an opportunity to study the process of peer review and taken together our results should provoke a rethinking of the role and prominence of peer-review in the current publication system.”
“By manually comparing the preprints to their peer-reviewed, published, versions we show that over 83% of COVID-19 and 93% of non-COVID preprints are reliable and trustworthy,” adds Coates
Source: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3001285
Image Credit: Getty
You were reading: Most early COVID-19 preprints published on bioRxiv and medRxiv are reliable and trustworthy, says study
