标题： 按说明使用？ 用于检查已发表作品严谨性和透明度的软件工具比较 显示英文标题

标题： Use as Directed? A Comparison of Software Tools Intended to Check Rigor and Transparency of Published Work

摘要： 可重复性危机的原因包括科学报告中缺乏标准化和透明度。 像ARRIVE和CONSORT这样的检查清单旨在提高透明度，但作者有时并不遵循这些清单，同行评审也常常无法发现缺失的项目。 为了解决这些问题，已经设计了几种自动化工具来检查不同的严谨性标准。 我们对ScreenIT小组的9个不同严谨性标准下的11种自动化工具进行了广泛的比较。 我们发现了一些标准，包括检测开放数据，在这些标准中，工具的组合显示出明显的优胜者，该工具的表现远优于其他工具。 在其他情况下，包括检测纳入和排除标准，工具的组合表现超过了任何单一工具的表现。 我们还确定了工具开发者应重点努力的关键领域，以使他们的工具尽可能有用。 最后，我们为严谨性和透明度检测工具开发的利益相关者提出了一套见解和建议。 本研究的代码和数据可在https://github.com/PeterEckmann1/tool-comparison获取。 显示英文摘要

摘要： 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.