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

Read full text
Authors: Peter Eckmann, Adrian Barnett, Alexandra Bannach-Brown, Elisa Pilar Bascunan Atria, Guillaume Cabanac, Louise Delwen Owen Franzen, Małgorzata Anna Gazda, Kaitlyn Hair, James Howison, Halil Kilicoglu, Cyril Labbe, Sarah McCann
+8 more Vladislav Nachev, Martijn Roelandse, Maia Salholz‐Hillel, Robert Schulz, Gerben ter Riet, Colby Vorland, Anita Bandrowski, Tracey Weissgerber
Cited by: 1
References: 21

Abstract

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.

Fields of Study & Subjects

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Academic integrity and plagiarism scientometrics and bibliometrics research

Publication details

Journal / source
PLoS ONE
Publisher
Public Library of Science (PLoS)
Volume
21
Issue
2
Pages
e0342225–e0342225
Publication date
13 February 2026
Language
EN