Beyond Gatekeeping: Reassessing Peer Review and Establishing Preprints as the Future of Scientific Communication

Purpose: The traditional peer review process, long regarded as the cornerstone of academic validation, faces mounting criticism over profound inefficiencies, systemic biases, and its inability to keep pace with modern scientific needs. This paper provides a comprehensive critical analysis of these limitations and presents a robust case for repositioning preprints from a supplementary channel to the primary mode of scholarly communication, supported by emerging hybrid models that integrate open dissemination with transparent review.Design/Methodology/Approach: We conducted an extensive narrative literature review, synthesizing findings from empirical studies, meta-analyses, and case reports published between 2000 and 2025. Searches were performed across major databases including PubMed Central, Web of Science, OSF Preprints, SSRN, and arXiv. Our analysis focused on synthesizing quantitative data on review timelines, rejection rates, reviewer reliability, and citation metrics, alongside qualitative assessments of equity, psychological burden, and innovation in publishing models.Findings: The evidence consistently reveals that conventional peer review imposes significant delays (6–24 months) with questionable returns in manuscript quality improvement, while imposing high psychological and operational costs on the research community. In contrast, preprints facilitate immediate dissemination and are associated with a demonstrable citation and altmetric advantage (e.g., 36% more citations, 49% higher altmetric attention). The COVID-19 pandemic served as a pivotal case study, underscoring the critical role of preprints in accelerating research response. Hybrid models like Publish-Review-Curate (PRC) and overlay journals offer viable pathways to integrate the speed of preprints with structured, community-driven quality assurance.Originality/Value: This review synthesizes a broad and updated body of literature to argue for a paradigm shift in scientific communication. It moves beyond critiquing peer review to outlining a concrete, evidence-based future where preprints become the default starting point for research dissemination. This transition is framed as an essential step towards a more efficient, equitable, and transparent scientific ecosystem, particularly beneficial for early-career and independent researchers outside traditional academic power structures.