Article Dans Une Revue PLoS ONE Année : 2026

Use as directed? A comparison of software tools intended to check rigor and transparency of published work

Kaitlyn Hair
James Howison
Martijn Roelandse
  • Fonction : Auteur
Robert Schulz

Résumé

The causes of the reproducibility crisis include lack of standardization and transparency in scientific reporting. Checklists such as ARRIVE and CONSORT seek to improve transparency, but they are not always followed by authors and peer review often fails to identify missing items. To address these issues, there are several automated tools that have been designed to check different rigor criteria. We have conducted a broad comparison of 11 automated tools across 9 different rigor criteria from the ScreenIT group. We found some criteria, including detecting open data, where the combination of tools showed a clear winner, a tool which performed much better than other tools. In other cases, including detection of inclusion and exclusion criteria, the combination of tools exceeded the performance of any one tool. We also identified key areas where tool developers should focus their effort to make their tool maximally useful. We conclude with a set of insights and recommendations for stakeholders in the development of rigor and transparency detection tools. The code and data for the study is available at https://github.com/PeterEckmann1/tool-comparison.

Mots clés

Fichier principal
Vignette du fichier
journal.pone.0342225.pdf (1.13 Mo) Télécharger le fichier
Origine Fichiers éditeurs autorisés sur une archive ouverte
licence

Dates et versions

hal-05535469 , version 1 (03-03-2026)

Licence

Identifiants

Citer

Peter Eckmann, Adrian Barnett, Alexandra Bannach-Brown, Elisa Pilar Bascunan Atria, Guillaume Cabanac, et al.. Use as directed? A comparison of software tools intended to check rigor and transparency of published work. PLoS ONE, 2026, 21 (2), pp.e0342225. ⟨10.1371/journal.pone.0342225⟩. ⟨hal-05535469⟩
1351 Consultations
124 Téléchargements

Altmetric

Partager

  • More