Background Preprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily measurable is completeness of reporting, as transparency can improve the reader’s ability to independently interpret data and reproduce findings. Methods In this observational study, we initially compared independent samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in PubMed-indexed journals in 2016 using a quality of reporting questionnaire. After that, we performed paired comparisons between preprints from bioRxiv to their own peer-reviewed versions in journals. Results Peer-reviewed articles had, on average, higher quality of reporting than preprints, although the difference was small, with absolute differences of 5.0% [95% CI 1.4, 8.6] and 4.7% [95% CI 2.4, 7.0] of reported items in the independent samples and paired sample comparison, respectively. There were larger differences favoring peer-reviewed articles in subjective ratings of how clearly titles and abstracts presented the main findings and how easy it was to locate relevant reporting information. Changes in reporting from preprints to peer-reviewed versions did not correlate with the impact factor of the publication venue or with the time lag from bioRxiv to journal publication. Conclusions Our results suggest that, on average, publication in a peer-reviewed journal is associated with improvement in quality of reporting. They also show that quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is within a similar range as that of peer-reviewed articles, albeit slightly lower on average, supporting the idea that preprints should be considered valid scientific contributions.

Preprint usage is growing rapidly in the life sciences; however, questions remain on the relative quality of preprints when compared to published articles. An objective dimension of quality that is readily measurable is completeness of reporting, as transparency can improve the reader's ability to independently interpret data and reproduce findings. In this observational study, we initially compared independent samples of articles published in bioRxiv and in PubMed-indexed journals in 2016 using a quality of reporting questionnaire. After that, preprints were also compared to their own journalpublished versions. Peer-reviewed articles had, on average, higher quality of reporting than preprints, although the difference was small, with absolute differences of 5.0 % [95% CI 1.4, 8.6] and 4.7 % [95% CI 2.4, 7.0] of reported items in the independent samples and paired sample comparison, respectively. There were larger differences favoring peerreviewed articles in subjective ratings of how clearly titles and abstracts presented the main findings and how easy it was to locate relevant reporting information. Changes in reporting from preprints to peer-reviewed versions did not correlate with the impact factor of the publication venue or with the time lag from bioRxiv to journal publication. Overall, our results suggest that editorial peer review has a statistically significant but small impact on improving quality of reporting.They also show that quality of reporting in preprints in the life sciences is within a similar range as that of peer -reviewed articles, albeit slightly lower on average, supporting the idea that preprints should be considered valid scientific contributions.

The corpus callosum (CC) is the largest white matter structure and the primary pathway for interhemispheric brain communication. Investigating callosal connectivity is crucial to unraveling the brain’s anatomical and functional organization in health and disease. Classical anatomical studies have characterized the bulk of callosal axonal fibers as connecting primarily homotopic cortical areas. Whenever detected, heterotopic callosal fibers were ascribed to altered sprouting and pruning mechanisms in neurodevelopmental diseases such as CC dysgenesis (CCD). We hypothesized that these heterotopic connections had been grossly underestimated due to their complex nature and methodological limitations. We used the Allen Mouse Brain Connectivity Atlas and high-resolution diffusion-weighted imaging to identify and quantify homotopic and heterotopic callosal connections in mice, marmosets, and humans. In all 3 species, we show that ~75% of interhemispheric callosal connections are heterotopic and comprise the central core of the CC, whereas the homotopic fibers lay along its periphery. We also demonstrate that heterotopic connections have an essential role in determining the global properties of brain networks. These findings reshape our view of the corpus callosum’s role as the primary hub for interhemispheric brain communication, directly impacting multiple neuroscience fields investigating cortical connectivity, neurodevelopment, and neurodevelopmental disorders.

Prolonged increases in excitation can trigger cell-wide homeostatic responses in neurons, altering membrane channels, promoting morphological changes, and ultimately reducing synaptic weights. However, how synaptic downscaling interacts with classical forms of Hebbian plasticity is still unclear. In this study, we investigated whether chronic optogenetic stimulation of hippocampus CA1 pyramidal neurons in freely moving mice could (a) cause morphological changes reminiscent of homeostatic scaling, (b) modulate synaptic currents that might compensate for chronic excitation, and (c) lead to alterations in Hebbian plasticity. After 24 hr of stimulation with 15-ms blue light pulses every 90 s, dendritic spine density and area were reduced in the CA1 region of mice expressing channelrhodopsin-2 (ChR2) when compared to controls. This protocol also reduced the amplitude of mEPSCs for both the AMPA and NMDA components in ex vivo slices obtained from ChR2-expressing mice immediately after the end of stimulation.Finally, chronic stimulation impaired the induction of LTP and facilitated that of LTD in these slices. Our results indicate that neuronal responses to prolonged network excitation can modulate subsequent Hebbian plasticity in the hippocampus.