Research integrity and peer review最新文献

{"title":"A scoping review of guides and advice for scholarly citing in health research.","authors":"Lasse Østengaard, Tine Tjørnhøj-Thomsen, Asger S Paludan-Müller, Mia Elkjær, Tove Faber Frandsen, Asbjørn Hróbjartsson","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00195-1","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00195-1","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objectives: </strong>To identify, summarise and analyse documents with guides and advice for scholarly citing in health research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>In a scoping review, we included documents with guides and advice for scholarly citing in health research. We searched in Embase (Ovid), Google Scholar, 20 textbooks, 30 journal websites, and conducted supplementary searches. We categorised original documents as guides if their primary focus was on scholarly citing and if they contained a list of advice. We summarised the guides and pieces of advice, analysed the pieces of advice, and listed illustrative quotes.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We screened 9.746 documents for eligibility and included 118. The documents were published in 1934-2025, and the guides and advice were primarily identified in journal articles (63 out of 118 documents, 53%) and on websites (42 out of 118 documents, 36%). We identified 12 guides and 75 unique pieces of advice (e.g., \"read the papers you cite\"). The 12 guides were developed with a simple pragmatic approach, i.e., no systematic literature review of previous studies, and only one guide included a survey as a supporting study. The various pieces of advice were related to seven categories that researchers could reflect on while citing: 1) quality, 2) context, 3) when to cite, 4) integrity, 5) originality, 6) transparency, and 7) availability.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>We identified 12 guides and 75 unique pieces of advice for scholarly citing in health research. Our review may serve as a resource for authors of health research publications and as part of the development process for a comprehensive guideline for adequate citation practice in health research.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.7,"publicationDate":"2026-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13151081/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147847293","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Beyond genuine collaboration: the rise of strategic co-authorship in contemporary academic publishing.","authors":"Rui Marcelino","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00197-z","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-026-00197-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The near-disappearance of single-author publications in scientific literature represents one of the most dramatic shifts in academic publishing over the past two decades. While this trend is often attributed to increased scientific collaboration and research complexity, substantial evidence suggests that systemic publication pressures and metric-based evaluation systems have created incentives for \"strategic co-authorship\"-practices including honorary authorship, gift authorship, and publication cartels that violate established authorship criteria. This article synthesizes empirical evidence documenting the decline of single-author publications, the prevalence of authorship misconduct, and the systemic drivers underlying these practices. Drawing on bibliometric analyses, prevalence surveys, and studies of academic culture, evidence-based synthesis indicates that addressing authorship requires fundamental reforms to institutional assessment systems, enhanced editorial vigilance, and cultural change in how the academic community values research contributions. The integrity of the scientific record depends on honest attribution of intellectual work, yet current incentive structures systematically undermine this foundational principle.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.7,"publicationDate":"2026-04-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13123118/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147791847","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Lost in documentation: professional norms and the gaps in survey translation transparency.","authors":"Marziyeh Sadeghzadeh, Nasimeh Nouhi Jadesi","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00192-4","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00192-4","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Introduction: </strong>This study systematically investigates documentation gaps in survey translation within validation studies conducted by Iranian researchers, framing these gaps as a critical, yet overlooked, research integrity concern. Transparent reporting is foundational not only for methodological rigor but for enabling meaningful peer review and trust in cross-cultural findings.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Using a comprehensive framework that assesses documentation across three phases (input, translation process, and output), we analyzed the completeness of reported translation procedures. We further evaluated these practices against established professional standards for translation- specifically, the norms of accountability, communication, and fidelity- which align with core research integrity principles.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The findings reveal a pronounced and systemic imbalance: while the translation process itself is frequently documented, both preparatory (input) and resultant (output) stages are largely neglected. This selective reporting constitutes a significant transparency deficit, obscuring essential information about translation validity and severely compromising the methodological scrutiny central to peer review. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION: The results directly inform interventions to bolster research integrity, as neglecting thorough documentation creates an unrecoverable information gap for peer reviewers. This prevents proper evaluation of translation validity- a core methodological checkpoint. Therefore, the proposed priorities (e.g., mandatory reporting templates for input briefs and output decisions) are targeted interventions to make the translation process auditable. These gaps systematically exclude evidence of translators' intellectual labor and cultural mediation, eroding the transparency necessary for reproducing or trusting cross-cultural findings. The consistent pattern in Iran, mirroring LMIC (Low- and Middle-Income Country) challenges, confirms that standardizing documentation is a prerequisite for equitable peer review, ensuring that the methodological foundations of cross-cultural research, specifically translation validity, are rendered auditable and subject to effective peer review- a core safeguard of research integrity.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.7,"publicationDate":"2026-04-13","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13072526/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147679374","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Completeness of reporting in abstracts of randomized controlled trials and factors associated with complete reporting: a meta-research study.","authors":"Corentin Chapron, Lina Ghosn, Carolina Riveros, Gabriel Baron, Isabelle Boutron","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00196-0","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00196-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The CONSORT statement for reporting abstracts of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) provides a list of essential items to report to ensure reliable interpretation. We evaluated the completeness of reporting of RCT abstracts published in high-impact-factor journals and examined factors associated with adherence to the CONSORT for abstracts.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>On March 5, 2024, we searched PubMed for abstracts of RCTs published in the top five journals (ISI Web of Knowledge 2023) in 22 medical fields, including Medicine, General & Internal, from July 1, 2023, to February 29, 2024. We assessed the completeness of reporting of the 15 items of the CONSORT for abstracts in duplicate via a standardized data extraction form. The primary outcome was the mean number of items adequately reported. The prespecified factors potentially associated with adherence to CONSORT for abstracts included study-specific factors (income category of the country, funding type, and sample size) and journal-specific factors (type of journal [specialized vs. general medicine], CONSORT endorsement, abstract word count limit, and structured abstract).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Among 1267 citations, 610 abstracts published in 82 distinct journals were included. The mean (SD) number of items adequately reported was 10.1 (2.5). Among the 610 abstracts included, the quality of reporting varied across items; some items were adequately reported (97% (n=594) for participants, 100% (n=610) for interventions, 96% (n=585) for objectives) and others were poorly reported (29% (n=175) for trial design, 36% (n=221) for funding sources, 32% (n=197) for blinding and 13% (n=81) for randomization). The multivariate linear-mixed effects model showed that a sample size above 100, the CONSORT endorsement and Medicine, General & Internal journals were associated with a higher mean number of items adequately reported.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Reporting of RCT abstracts remains incomplete particularly for key items including trial design, random sequence generation, blinding, and funding source disclosure. CONSORT endorsement, publication in a general medical journal and larger sample size were associated with better adherence to CONSORT for abstracts.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.7,"publicationDate":"2026-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13045057/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147596700","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Prompt injection in manuscripts: exploiting loopholes or crossing ethical lines?","authors":"Shuchen Tang, Zilong Li","doi":"10.1186/s41073-025-00187-7","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-025-00187-7","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The integration of AI in academic publishing has raised significant ethical concerns, particularly regarding the practice of prompt injection, where hidden instructions are embedded in manuscripts to manipulate AI responses in the peer review process.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study employed a mixed-methods approach, combining a comprehensive content analysis of academic integrity guidelines with a survey of 194 stakeholders, including authors, peer reviewers, and journal editors from various academic fields. The survey focused on their awareness of prompt injection, perceptions of its ethical implications, and views on AI transparency in peer review.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The findings reveal that a substantial proportion of participants (80%) support greater transparency in the use of AI in peer review. Many respondents reported frustrations with the inconsistencies and inefficacies of AI-generated feedback, prompting some to consider the use of prompt injection as a strategy to secure favorable review outcomes. Importantly, the analysis identified a significant gap in current definitions of research misconduct, which do not adequately address the ethical implications of AI interventions.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study highlights the urgent need for revised ethical frameworks that incorporate AI-related issues in academic publishing, advocating for policies that promote transparency and uphold the integrity of the peer review process.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.7,"publicationDate":"2026-03-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13007373/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147500878","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Symbolic scarcity and epistemic waste: a systems theory of academic publishing failure.","authors":"Trym Hansen","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00193-3","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00193-3","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Contemporary academic publishing increasingly operates under conditions of symbolic scarcity, shaped by rising submission volumes, constrained reviewer capacity, and evaluative incentives that privilege novelty, visibility, and perceived impact. While these dynamics vary across disciplines, their cumulative effect is a publication system that systematically favors novel and attention-generating contributions over replication, confirmation, and cumulative refinement. As a result, methodologically sound research that tests, stabilizes, or contextualizes existing findings is more likely to be delayed, displaced, or rendered invisible, contributing to persistent non-replication and long-term fragility of the scientific record.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This paper develops a systems-theoretic analysis of academic publishing, examining how prestige filtration, redundancy in peer review, and novelty-oriented selection interact with institutional incentive structures. Rather than attributing dysfunction to individual actors or emerging technologies, the analysis focuses on how current publication architectures shape evaluative behavior, reviewer labor allocation, and the composition of the visible scientific record.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The analysis identifies three interlocking failure modes: (1) a structural decoupling between epistemic contribution and publication outcomes driven by novelty-oriented symbolic selection; (2) systematic waste of reviewer labor due to non-transferable and repetitive evaluation processes; and (3) declining scalability of existing review infrastructures as generative AI lowers the cost of manuscript production while increasing evaluative load. Together, these dynamics suppress replication and cumulative verification, distort the visible scientific record, and misdirect expert attention away from epistemically stabilizing review.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>To address these failures, the paper proposes a two-tiered publishing architecture that separates epistemic inclusion from symbolic curation, alongside a complementary tiered review model that aligns review intensity with epistemic risk. An optional framework for reviewer recognition is also outlined to support sustained evaluative engagement without undermining anonymity. These proposals are offered as conceptual system designs rather than prescriptive reforms, intended to clarify how current publishing architectures generate epistemic waste and to suggest structurally feasible pathways toward a more coherent, inclusive, and resilient scholarly communication system.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.7,"publicationDate":"2026-03-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12980890/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147438210","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Reporting quality of quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR) methods in scientific publications.","authors":"Natascha Drude, Camila Baselly, Małgorzata Anna Gazda, Jan-Niklas May, Lena Tienken, Parya Abbasi, Tracey Weissgerber, Steven Burgess","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00188-0","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00188-0","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Reproducibility remains a major concern in scientific research, particularly in complex methods such as quantitative polymerase chain reaction (qPCR). Stringent reporting standards are essential to ensure reproducibility, validity of data, and trustworthiness of conclusions. The MIQE (Minimum Information for Publication of Quantitative Real-Time PCR Experiments) guidelines, introduced in 2009, aimed to improve reporting practices. However, a 2013 study highlighted persistent deficiencies. To further assess the transparency and completeness of qPCR reporting, we conducted a systematic evaluation of recently published research.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We systematically reviewed research articles employing qPCR that were published in the top 20 journals in genetics and heredity (n = 186) and plant sciences (n = 246). Articles were assessed for completeness of methodological reporting with respect to RNA quality control, reference gene reporting, and details of RNA extraction, RNA-to-cDNA conversion, and qPCR procedures. Frequencies of reporting deficiencies were recorded and descriptively analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Our analysis identified frequent omissions and insufficient detail in reporting key information required to evaluate and replicate qPCR experiments. RNA integrity was reported in only 7-10% of studies, and assessment methods or instruments used for integrity evaluation were specified in just 14-16%. While primer sequences were often disclosed (88-93%), the traceability of housekeeping/reference genes was limited: accession numbers were provided in only 11% of genetics/heredity papers and 32% of plant science papers. Critical methodological details-including kit names, catalog numbers, and reagent specifications for RNA extraction, RNA-to-cDNA conversion, and qPCR-were also frequently missing, appearing in only 7-14% of reports.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>This study underscores the urgent need for improved reporting practices in qPCR experiments. Greater emphasis should be placed on quality controls, detailed descriptions of reagents and materials, and increased analytical transparency. Addressing these deficiencies is vital to enhance reproducibility and to strengthen the trustworthiness of qPCR-based research. Potential solutions include encouraging the citation of protocols in online repositories, providing structured reporting templates, and developing automated tools to support compliance with MIQE standards.</p><p><strong>Trial registration: </strong>Not applicable (not a clinical trial). The study was preregistered on the Open Science Framework (OSF): https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/9ZP5M .</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":10.7,"publicationDate":"2026-03-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12961777/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"147357930","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Trials and tribulations of responsible people trying to uphold scientific standards.","authors":"Harald H Sitte, Jutta Hübner, Norbert Aust, Viktor Weisshäupl, Edzard Ernst","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00191-5","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00191-5","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Scientific misconduct threatens patient safety, progress, and trust in medicine. On October 3, 2020, Frass and colleagues published a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind trial in The Oncologist (published by Wiley at the time) claiming that add-on homeopathy significantly prolonged survival in advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Since homeopathy contradicts established scientific principles, doubts about the trial's validity quickly emerged. Concerns were first published in October 2020, followed in 2021 by a detailed analysis alleging scientific misconduct. This prompted the Medical University of Vienna, the affiliation of the study's lead author, to request an investigation by the Austrian Agency for Research Integrity (OeAWI). After conducting an in-depth review, OeAWI concluded in September 2022 with a clear recommendation for retraction. However, The Oncologist issued only an 'Expression of Concern' at the time, despite five co-authors formally requesting the withdrawal of their authorship- a demand that remained unaddressed as of November 2025. Repeated inquiries to the journal and its publisher, Oxford University Press (OUP), yielded only vague assurances that the matter was \"under review,\" with multiple deadlines passing without resolution. Finally, by November 24, 2025, The Oncologist retracted the paper. However, the retraction notice fails to address the specific concerns raised about the study's results and conclusions, nor does it provide a clear rationale for the retraction itself.Meanwhile, the paper has been cited more than 60 times (according to Google Scholar) and is widely circulated online as \"proof\" that homeopathy benefits cancer patients. This highlights the harmful consequences of delayed editorial action. According to COPE guidelines, misconduct must be dealt with swiftly and transparently. Our case reveals the opposite: incomplete corrections, prolonged inaction, and even the defense of implausible claims. Against the backdrop of increasing organized scientific fraud, this experience underscores the urgent responsibility of journals and publishers to protect the scientific record and prevent harm to patients.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":"5"},"PeriodicalIF":10.7,"publicationDate":"2026-02-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12908276/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146204085","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Most science is published from countries lacking in democracy and freedom of press.","authors":"John P A Ioannidis, Jeroen Baas","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00190-6","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00190-6","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Democracy and freedom of press may affect how science is prioritized, produced, communicated and disseminated. We aimed to map the production of scientific publications worldwide in terms of democracy and freedom of press ratings of countries.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This is a bibliometric study cross-linking global bibliometric data with democracy ratings and freedom of the press indices for countries around the world. Democracy ratings used the Democracy Index in 2024 and in 2006 (when first released by the Economist Intelligence Unit) and Freedom of Press ratings used the 2024 index by Reports Without Borders. The Scopus database was used for publications from each country. Fractional counts were assigned for publications co-authored by authors from different countries. Full articles, reviews, conference papers, books and book chapters were included.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In 2024, countries characterized as full democracies produced only 22% (915,102/4,185,853) of the Scopus-indexed publications, versus 66% (1,157,842/1,757,310) in 2006. There was no correlation between the ratio of publications indexed in 2024 versus 2006 and the absolute or relative change in Democracy Index between 2006 and 2024 (r = 0.02 and r = 0.00, respectively). 78% of publications in 2024 (3,255,770/4,187,136) came from countries with problematic (including USA) or worse (including China) rating for freedom of press. Proportions of publications originating from countries with problematic or worse situations were 81% (n = 3,374,348), 91% (n = 3,820,811), 61% (n = 2,537,962), 62% (n = 2,608,802), and 63% (n = 2,650,819) for political, economic, legislative, sociocultural, and safety/security dimensions, respectively. Results were similar when limited to articles published in 2024 in journals with continuous annual presence in Scopus during 2006-2024. 87.1% (1,489/1,710) of the highly cited papers published in 2024 (with 150 or more Scopus citations by November 23, 2025) have at least one author from a country that is not full democracy and 98.8% (1,690/1,710) of these highly cited papers have at least one author from a country that does not have good freedom of press.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Most published science originates from countries struggling or suffering in democracy and/or freedom of press. The deeper causes and implications of this emerging landscape require further study.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":"4"},"PeriodicalIF":10.7,"publicationDate":"2026-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12874684/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146121309","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparison of preprints and their corresponding peer-reviewed publications in the health field: a scoping review.","authors":"Mohamad Sadek Zoghbi, Amr Ali, Lama Hamade, Sasha Tedy, Ola El Zein, Joanne Khabsa, Elie A Akl","doi":"10.1186/s41073-026-00189-z","DOIUrl":"10.1186/s41073-026-00189-z","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Preprints are becoming more common in the health sciences and allow for instant dissemination of research findings; however, with the risk of compromising quality and transparency. Peer review potentially improves reporting and reduces errors, although its actual impact is not known. The objective of this scoping review was to synthesize evidence comparing preprints in the health areas to their peer-reviewed versions and assess preprint publication rates.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We searched Embase, Medline OVID, Scopus, and Web of Science from inception to July 2024 for studies comparing preprints with their peer-reviewed versions and/or investigating preprint publication rates. Two reviewers independently conducted screening and extracted data on study characteristics, parameters compared, and preprint publication rates. We conducted a narrative synthesis.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We included 40 studies (published 2019-2024; 92% peer-reviewed). The median number of studies analyzed per article was 356 (range: 19-73,256). 42% of preprints were eventually published among 33 studies that reported publication rates (IQR: 22%-67%). Preprint searches routinely started on January 1, 2020, with a median of 24.3 months and a median difference of 11.5 months between preprint and peer-reviewed search end dates. Commonly compared parameters were primary outcomes/endpoints (37%) and sample size (30%), with peer-reviewed articles showing improved reporting for funding (13%), conflicts of interest (13%).</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>While peer review enhances transparency and methodological reporting (e.g., funding, conflicts of interest), the content, outcomes, and conclusions of health-related preprints remain largely consistent with their peer-reviewed versions. Preprints facilitate rapid knowledge dissemination but may benefit from stricter reporting standards to improve credibility. Future efforts should focus on standardizing preprint policies to bridge quality gaps without delaying access.</p>","PeriodicalId":74682,"journal":{"name":"Research integrity and peer review","volume":"11 1","pages":"3"},"PeriodicalIF":10.7,"publicationDate":"2026-01-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12829155/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146031998","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":"","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}