Tracking changes between preprint posting and journal publication during a pandemic.

Amid the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, preprints in the biomedical sciences are being posted and accessed at unprecedented rates, drawing widespread attention from the general public, press, and policymakers for the first time. This phenomenon has sharpened long-standing questions about the reliability of information shared prior to journal peer review. Does the information shared in preprints typically withstand the scrutiny of peer review, or are conclusions likely to change in the version of record? We assessed preprints from bioRxiv and medRxiv that had been posted and subsequently published in a journal through April 30, 2020, representing the initial phase of the pandemic response. We utilised a combination of automatic and manual annotations to quantify how an article changed between the preprinted and published version. We found that the total number of figure panels and tables changed little between preprint and published articles. Moreover, the conclusions of 7.2% of non-COVID-19-related and 17.2% of COVID-19-related abstracts undergo a discrete change by the time of publication, but the majority of these changes do not qualitatively change the conclusions of the paper.

Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of preclinical systematic reviews.

In an effort to better utilize published evidence obtained from animal experiments, systematic reviews of preclinical studies are increasingly more common-along with the methods and tools to appraise them (e.g., SYstematic Review Center for Laboratory animal Experimentation [SYRCLE's] risk of bias tool). We performed a cross-sectional study of a sample of recent preclinical systematic reviews (2015-2018) and examined a range of epidemiological characteristics and used a 46-item checklist to assess reporting details. We identified 442 reviews published across 43 countries in 23 different disease domains that used 26 animal species. Reporting of key details to ensure transparency and reproducibility was inconsistent across reviews and within article sections. Items were most completely reported in the title, introduction, and results sections of the reviews, while least reported in the methods and discussion sections. Less than half of reviews reported that a risk of bias assessment for internal and external validity was undertaken, and none reported methods for evaluating construct validity. Our results demonstrate that a considerable number of preclinical systematic reviews investigating diverse topics have been conducted; however, their quality of reporting is inconsistent. Our study provides the justification and evidence to inform the development of guidelines for conducting and reporting preclinical systematic reviews.

Where have all the reviewers gone?

In this editorial the editor considers the growing challenges journals are facing in securing peer reviewers, some of the approaches being tried to address this problem, and the prospects for sustaining communities of scholars with and without an ongoing commitment to peer review.

So .You Want to be a Peer Reviewer?

Peer review is essential to preserving the integrity of the scientific publication process. Peer reviewers must adhere to the norms of the peer review process, including confidentiality, avoiding actual or apparent conflicts of interest, timeliness, constructiveness, and thoroughness. This mini review will discuss some of the different formats in which peer review might occur, as well as advantages and disadvantages of each. The topics then shift to providing advice for prospective reviewers, as well as a suggested format for use in writing a review.

Exploring ChatGPT's abilities in medical article writing and peer review.

AIM: To evaluate the quality of ChatGPT-generated case reports and assess the ability of ChatGPT to peer review medical articles. METHODS: This study was conducted from February to April 2023. First, ChatGPT 3.0 was used to generate 15 case reports, which were then peer-reviewed by expert human reviewers. Second, ChatGPT 4.0 was employed to peer review 15 published short articles. RESULTS: ChatGPT was capable of generating case reports, but these reports exhibited inaccuracies, particularly when it came to referencing. The case reports received mixed ratings from peer reviewers, with 33.3% of professionals recommending rejection. The reports' overall merit score was 4.9±1.8 out of 10. The review capabilities of ChatGPT were weaker than its text generation abilities. The AI as a peer reviewer did not recognize major inconsistencies in articles that had undergone significant content changes. CONCLUSION: While ChatGPT demonstrated proficiency in generating case reports, there were limitations in terms of consistency and accuracy, especially in referencing.

An overview of the peer review process in biomedical sciences.

OBJECTIVE: This paper aims to provide an introductory resource for beginner peer reviewers in psychiatry and the broader biomedical science field. It will provide a concise overview of the peer review process, alongside some reviewing tips and tricks. CONCLUSION: The peer review process is a fundamental aspect of biomedical science publishing. The model of peer review offered varies between journals and usually relies on a pool of volunteers with differing levels of expertise and scope. The aim of peer review is to collaboratively leverage reviewers' collective knowledge with the objective of increasing the quality and merit of published works. The limitations, methodology and need for transparency in the peer review process are often poorly understood. Although imperfect, the peer review process provides some degree of scientific rigour by emphasising the need for an ethical, comprehensive and systematic approach to reviewing articles. Contributions from junior reviewers can add significant value to manuscripts.

Peer Review beyond Journals.

The EMBO Journal has extended its Transparent Process beyond journal confines to post referee comments alongside preprint versions of papers and to partner with Review Commons, a pre-journal peer-review platform for Refereed Preprints in the life sciences.

Preregistration of exploratory research: Learning from the golden age of discovery.

Preregistration of study protocols and, in particular, Registered Reports are novel publishing formats that are currently gaining substantial traction. Besides rating the research question and soundness of methodology over outstanding significance of the results, they can help with antagonizing inadequate statistical power, selective reporting of results, undisclosed analytic flexibility, as well as publication bias. Preregistration works well when a clear hypothesis, primary outcome, and mode of analysis can be formulated. But is it also applicable and useful in discovery research, which develops theories and hypotheses, measurement techniques, and generates evidence that justifies further research? I will argue that only slight modifications are needed to harness the potential of preregistration and make exploratory research more trustworthy and useful.

The troubles with peer review for allocating research funding: Funders need to experiment with versions of peer review and decision-making.

Peer review to allocate funding for researchers and projects has faced difficulties lately and come under criticism. Various alternatives and improvements are being tested to address these problems.

COVID-19 and education: restructuring after the pandemic.

COVID-19 challenges to keep a valuable educational offer with lockdown measures and social distancing are reviewed. Scientific Societies had to think of new alternatives to maintain meetings with conversion to a virtual format and development of online resources, rapidly available and broadly accessible. Other in person activities as face-to-face clinics have been substituted by telemedicine; the same happened with surgical training in theatre, given the suspension of most of the operations. Finally, the need to share and communicate in a continuous evolving scenario, has impacted negatively the integrity of peer review process, not following the normal procedures to ensure scientific integrity and reproducibility in the earliest phases of the pandemic.