Fresh strategies to save orangutans

Future coexistence with great apes will require major changes to policy and practice

The great apes-bonobos, chimpanzees, gorillas and orangutans-are critically threatened by human activities. We have destroyed their habitats, hunted them and transmitted fatal diseases to them. Yet we also conduct research on them, try to protect them and live alongside them. They are endangered, and time is running out. Here we outline what must be done to ensure that future generations continue to share this planet with great apes. We urge dialogue with those who live with great apes and interact with them often. We advocate conservation plans that acknowledge the realities of climate change, economic drivers and population growth. We encourage researchers to use technology to minimize risks to great apes. Our proposals will require substantial investment, and we identify ways to generate these funds. We conclude with a discussion of how field researchers might alter their work to protect our closest living relatives more effectively.

Comparing quality of reporting between preprints and peer-reviewed articles in the biomedical literature

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

In this observational study, we initially compared independent samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in PubMed-indexed journals in 2016 using a quality of reporting questionnaire. After that, we performed paired comparisons between preprints from bioRxiv to their own peer-reviewed versions in journals.

RESULTS

Peer-reviewed articles had, on average, higher quality of reporting than preprints, although the difference was small, with absolute differences of 5.0% [95% CI 1.4, 8.6] and 4.7% [95% CI 2.4, 7.0] of reported items in the independent samples and paired sample comparison, respectively. There were larger differences favoring peer-reviewed articles in subjective ratings of how clearly titles and abstracts presented the main findings and how easy it was to locate relevant reporting information. Changes in reporting from preprints to peer-reviewed versions did not correlate with the impact factor of the publication venue or with the time lag from bioRxiv to journal publication.

CONCLUSIONS

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.