A study of referencing changes in preprint-publication pairs across multiple fields

TL;DR

This study analyzes how references in preprint-publication pairs change across fields, revealing that most references remain stable, with peer review enhancing methodological clarity and proper attribution.

Contribution

It provides large-scale, cross-disciplinary insights into reference changes and the impact of peer review on manuscript development.

Findings

90% of references unchanged between versions

8% of references newly added

Natural and medical sciences show more extensive reframing

Abstract

Manuscripts have a complex development process with multiple influencing factors. Reconstructing this process is difficult without large-scale, comparable data on different versions of manuscripts. Preprints are increasingly available and may provide access to the earliest manuscript versions. Here, we matched 6,024 preprint-publication pairs across multiple fields and examined changes in their reference lists between the manuscript versions as one aspect of manuscripts' development. We also qualitatively analysed the context of references to investigate the potential reasons for changes. We found that 90 percent of references were unchanged between versions and 8 percent were newly added. We found that manuscripts in the natural and medical sciences undergo more extensive reframing of the literature while changes in engineering mostly focused on methodological details. Our qualitative analysis suggests that peer review increases the methodological soundness of scientific claims, improves the communication of findings, and ensures appropriate credit for previous research.