We have just had one of our articles rejected by a well-known scientific journal. During the review process, the journal released our work on a preprint server [1]. This caused our lead author to be somewhat concerned. He was even more concerned to find that the work remained available even though the article was rejected by the journal.
To me, the work looks pretty good, and you might expect an experienced and widely published author to be more informed about the pros and cons of preprints. However, many authors share these concerns. A recent survey found that while most biomedical researchers recognise the benefits of preprints, many are still hesitant to engage with the practice, largely due to the lack of peer review [2]. Many authors feel excited about the increased visibility that a preprint can bring, allowing the research to reach peers sooner than it would through the traditional review process, which can take 8 to 10 months in some fields [2]. Preprints allow the work to be cited earlier, which can help establish priority, particularly in fast-moving fields. Some research even suggests that articles published as preprints first may receive more citations than those that are not [3].
However, some authors might worry about the perception of preprints as being ‘unreviewed’ and whether it will affect their reputation or the credibility of the research. This concern is not unfounded, as critics argue that the unchecked dissemination of unreviewed science can lead to the spread of misinformation [4]. They also worry that some journals may reject work that has appeared as a preprint. In general, while the move to preprints represents an exciting chance for broader dissemination and early community engagement, it is natural for authors to weigh these advantages against concerns over quality perception, competition, and the long-term impact on their work’s formal publication and academic career. You may want to read our brief summary of points to consider when next asked about preprints [5].
Preprints can be especially beneficial for researchers hoping to refine their work or better explain their findings through feedback from the community before submitting it for peer review. However, it is important to give thorough consideration to the possible advantages and disadvantages before making a decision. Articles that express radical opinions or present data that contradicts current thinking can undergo intense criticism that might preclude appropriate consideration by a journal.
Posting a manuscript on a preprint server does not guarantee that it will be accepted by a journal. The work will still need to follow the established process of validation via peer review and editorial approval. Your preprint work may contain oversights, errors, or misinterpretations that you may have overlooked. It is therefore important to use great care in preparing your preprint. Equally, care is needed when citing preprint data in your reporting, clearly indicating that any such work has not yet undergone peer review.
References
- Avdeev SN, Nuralieva GS, Gaynitdinova VV, et al. Bovhyaluronidase azoximer for long-term pulmonary sequelae of COVID-19: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. medRxiv [Preprint]. 2024 [cited 2024 Nov 11].
- Ng JY, Chow V, Santoro LJ, et al. An international, cross-sectional survey of preprint attitudes among biomedical researchers. F1000Res. 2024;13:6.
- Nash J. VeriXiv: The benefits of publishing your Gates Foundation-funded research as a preprint. Gates Open Research Blog. 2024 Aug 30 [cited 2024 Nov 11].
- Chtena N, Alperin JP, Fleerackers A. Preprints at a crossroads – Are we compromising openness for credibility? LSE Impact Blog. 2024 Nov 13 [cited 2024 Nov 13].
- Hardman T. The Pros and Cons of Preprints. LinkedIn. 2024 [cited 2024 Nov 11].
