Preprints can help detect flaws that might otherwise escape the notice of a conventional peer review process
The world moves at an ever-increasing pace, and this is especially true for biomedical research. The expansion of research capacity enabled by high-performance computing and ubiquitous, high-speed internet have created a fertile environment for the rapid dissemination and iteration of new ideas. There has been an explosion of output in many biomedical fields, including -omics of many stripes, ‘in silico’ research, very large cohort studies (‘biobanking’) and medical artificial intelligence.
This rapid pace of progress has not come without a cost. The rush to publication, an unavoidable consequence of the competitive modern research environment and institutional pressures upon researchers,1 has placed a tremendous strain on traditional avenues of research publication. Numerous high-profile retractions have occurred in recent years. It is believed than many, if not most, medical articles describe results that will not be able to be replicated,2 even if published in high-impact journals.3 These concerns have led to suggestions of a ‘reproducibility crisis’,4 although this might be better characterized as a chronic problem of reproducibility that has existed for some time. Research published in this Journal two decades ago demonstrated that long-standing concerns about the reproducibility of epidemiological research were justified.5 Solutions to this complex issue will comprise many parts, and many may have a long time horizon. For instance, others have focused on potential solutions involving strengthening or removing the use of P-value thresholds.6
This editorial focuses on potential changes to the peer review process as one part of the solution to reproducibility issues in biomedical research.
