Key points are not available for this paper at this time.
Introduction: Traditional, complementary, and integrative medicine (TCIM) encompasses a wide range of healthcare practices and holds substantial research potential. However, the field faces persistent challenges, including variability in research methodology and limited engagement from the broader scientific community. One approach that may help address these issues is the use of preprints, openly accessible manuscripts posted prior to formal peer review. Preprinting can accelerate dissemination, increase accessibility, and offer opportunities for early feedback that may improve reporting quality prior to the publication of the journal article. Responsible use of preprints, paired with transparent reporting and critical appraisal, is therefore essential to maximize benefits while minimizing risks. Our protocol outlines a historical cohort study which compares abstracts of TCIM-related preprints with their corresponding journal articles, to characterize the nature and frequency of differences observed between both versions. Methods: Using a historical cohort design, we will analyse 611 TCIM preprint–journal article pairs identified through a prior bibliometric analysis of 11 preprint servers listed in the ASAPbio directory with TCIM-related subject areas. For each pair, abstracts from both the preprint and the journal article will be compared using Microsoft Word's “Compare Documents” function. Differences in how the background, methods, results, and conclusions are reported will be annotated and categorized (e.g., design alterations, numerical modifications, interpretation changes). Descriptive statistics will summarize the frequency and nature of changes. Conclusion: Our study will be the first to systematically investigate how the abstracts of TCIM preprints and the corresponding journal articles differ, offering insight into the reporting changes observed during the peer review process and contributing to discussions on transparency in scientific communication and reporting practices between preprints and their subsequent journal article within this field.
Ng et al. (Fri,) studied this question.