Biomedical researchers use preprints for speed, but hesitate to credit them in evaluation
This article has been Reviewed by the following groups
Listed in
- Evaluated articles (PREreview)
Abstract
The preprint ecosystem has expanded rapidly over the past decade, fundamentally altering science communication. Yet, the scholarly community’s attitudes toward this shift remain underexplored. Through a large-scale survey of US and Canadian biomedical scholars, we provide a comprehensive analysis of preprint utilization, perceived impact, and integration into academic credit systems. We find robust engagement across reading, citing, and submitting preprints; however, this activity is driven primarily by a desire for rapid dissemination rather than a foundational commitment to open science. Furthermore, while preprints are valued as networking assets, perceived career penalties during formal academic evaluations stifle broader cultural adoption. Crucially, to navigate the absence of formal peer review, scholars report a heavy reliance on author reputation as a primary heuristic for evaluating a preprint’s credibility and guiding their reading and citation decisions. Notably, despite acknowledging preprints’ role in accelerating knowledge sharing, scholars express significant concerns regarding fraud and misinformation, particularly amid declining public trust in science and emerging threats to scientific integrity from artificial intelligence. To resolve these tensions, the preprint ecosystem must evolve beyond prioritizing speed to foster genuine academic dialogue. Simultaneously, evaluation frameworks must adapt to the realities of preprinting, and innovative quality-control mechanisms are urgently needed to balance rapid dissemination with rigorous scientific integrity.
Article activity feed
-
This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/22833515.
The manuscript addresses a relevant topic in scholarly communication by examining how researchers use preprints, perceive their quality, and recognize their contributions within academic evaluation. Its three clearly formulated research questions provide a coherent framework, while the combination of survey responses and open-ended comments offers valuable insights into researchers' practices and perceptions. We believe the study can contribute meaningfully to discussions on open science. However, four issues deserve further attention to strengthen its methodological transparency and analytical depth.
1. Response rate and representativeness
The very low response rate raises concerns …
This Zenodo record is a permanently preserved version of a PREreview. You can view the complete PREreview at https://prereview.org/reviews/22833515.
The manuscript addresses a relevant topic in scholarly communication by examining how researchers use preprints, perceive their quality, and recognize their contributions within academic evaluation. Its three clearly formulated research questions provide a coherent framework, while the combination of survey responses and open-ended comments offers valuable insights into researchers' practices and perceptions. We believe the study can contribute meaningfully to discussions on open science. However, four issues deserve further attention to strengthen its methodological transparency and analytical depth.
1. Response rate and representativeness
The very low response rate raises concerns about potential non-response bias. Of the 213,340 successfully delivered emails, 5,855 recipients started the survey (2.7%), but only 1,874 completed it (0.88%). The final analytical sample of 1,758 participants represents approximately 0.82% of those contacted. Although a low response rate does not necessarily demonstrate bias, researchers with stronger opinions about preprints or greater engagement with them may have been more inclined to participate.
We recommend clarifying the response and completion rates, explaining the exclusion criteria, and, if possible, comparing respondents with the invited population. A more explicit discussion of selection bias would also help establish appropriate limits for generalizing the findings.
2. Alignment between research questions, methods, and conclusions
Although the research questions are clearly articulated, greater attention is needed to ensure that the conclusions, particularly those concerning academic recognition and career penalties, are adequately supported by the evidence. The survey captures researchers' perceptions and self-reported evaluation practices, but assigning less credit to preprints does not necessarily demonstrate actual negative consequences for hiring, promotion, or funding.
We encourage the authors to distinguish more consistently between reported attitudes, evaluation practices, and demonstrated institutional outcomes. Claims concerning academic penalties should be qualified when the evidence supports perceptions of disadvantage rather than observed career consequences.
3. A broader understanding of preprints and their contribution to open science
The finding that researchers prioritize rapid dissemination over receiving open reviews deserves further reflection. These motivations are not necessarily mutually exclusive: researchers may value speed while supporting transparency, collaboration, and scientific dialogue. Similarly, the relatively low importance attributed to open reviews may reflect limited opportunities to receive feedback rather than a lack of commitment to open science.
We suggest broadening the discussion to consider preprints as instruments of accessibility, collaboration, and scientific evaluation. Initiatives such as PREreview, Review Commons, and eLife's Reviewed Preprints illustrate approaches connecting early dissemination with public evaluation. Considering these experiences would help qualify the opposition between speed and quality and provide a more nuanced understanding of the relationship between preprints and scientific scrutiny.
4. Academic recognition and the institutional conditions of preprint adoption
The tension between researchers' use of preprints and their recognition within academic evaluation is among the manuscript's most significant findings. This issue could be developed further by examining how institutional expectations and evaluation practices influence researchers' decisions, particularly across different career stages.
We encourage the authors to discuss how recognition might depend on transparent evaluation criteria, publicly accessible reviews, and mechanisms for assessing scientific contributions independently of journal prestige. Such a discussion would strengthen the connection between the empirical findings and broader debates about academic evaluation, while acknowledging that the study does not directly assess the effectiveness of these alternatives.
Overall assessment
The manuscript offers valuable empirical material for understanding the evolving role of preprints in scholarly communication. Its contribution would be strengthened by greater transparency concerning the sample, more cautious interpretations of academic penalties, and a broader discussion of preprints as instruments of scientific communication and evaluation. These obsevations would support a more nuanced understanding of the relationships between rapid dissemination, scientific quality, open dialogue, and academic recognition.
Conflitos de interesse
Os autores declaram que não possuem conflitos de interesse.
Uso de Inteligência Artificial (IA)
The authors declare that they did not use generative AI to come up with new ideas for their review.
-
