Victor G. S. Queiroz, Clarissa F. D. Carneiro, Flávia Zacouteguy Boos, Clarissa Haas, Lieve van Egmond, Danielle Rayêe, Olavo B. Amaral, Martin Modrak, Steven J. Burgess, Pedro B. Tan, Vanessa Trindade Bortoluzzi, Gerson D. Guercio, Igor Rodrigues da Costa, Thiago C. Moulin, Felippe E. Amorim, Richard J. Abdill, Carlos Alberto Marques de Carvalho, Evandro A. De-Souza, David E. Henshall, Sylvia F. S. Guerra, and Karina L. Hajdu
FAPERJ (Funda??o de Amparo ? Pesquisa do Estado do Rio de Janeiro) Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Minist?rio da Sa?de. Secretaria de Vigil?ncia em Sa?de. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil / Universidade do Estado do Par?. Departamento de Morfologia e Ci?ncias Fisiol?gicas. Bel?m, PA, Brazil / Centro Universit?rio Metropolitano da Amaz?nia. Instituto Euro-Americano de Educa??o, Ci?ncia e Tecnologia. Bel?m, PA, Brazil. University of Groningen. Department of Neuroscience. Section Medical Physiology. Groningen, The Netherlands. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Biomedical Sciences Institute. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. University of Edinburgh Medical School. Scotland, United Kingdom. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Universidade Federal de S?o Paulo. Programa de P?s-Gradua??o em Psicobiologia. S?o Paulo, SP, Brazil. University of Minnesota. Department of Psychiatry. Minneapolis, MN, USA. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Biomedical Sciences Institute. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. Institute of Microbiology of the Czech Academy of Sciences. Czech Republic. University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. Carl R Woese Institute for Genomic Biology. Urbana, Illinois, USA. Universidade do Estado do Par?. Departamento de Morfologia e Ci?ncias Fisiol?gicas. Bel?m, PA, Brazil / Centro Universit?rio Metropolitano da Amaz?nia. Instituto Euro-Americano de Educa??o, Ci?ncia e Tecnologia. Bel?m, PA, Brazil / Minist?rio da Sa?de. Secretaria de Vigil?ncia em Sa?de. Instituto Evandro Chagas. Ananindeua, PA, Brasil. Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul. Instituto de Ci?ncias B?sicas da Sa?de. Departamento de Bioqu?mica. Rio Grande do Sul, RS, Brazil. Federal University of Rio de Janeiro. Institute of Medical Biochemistry Leopoldo de Meis. Rio de Janeiro, RJ, Brazil. 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. In this observational study, we 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. We found larger differences favoring PubMed in subjective ratings of how clearly titles and abstracts presented the main findings and how easy it was to locate relevant reporting information. Interestingly, an exploratory analysis showed that preprints with figures and legends embedded within text had reporting scores similar to PubMed articles. These differences cannot be directly attributed to peer review or editorial processes, as manuscripts might already differ before submission due to greater uptake of preprints by particular research communities. Nevertheless, our results 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. An ongoing second phase of the project is comparing preprints to their own published versions in order to more directly assess the effects of peer review.