Bringing together a range of studies into various aspects of how preprints interact with the wider information ecosystem, Natascha Chtena, Juan Pablo Alperin, and Alice Fleerackers argue that the speed, accessibility and low barriers to entry that preprints offer to scholarly communication risk being undermined by attempts to make them more aligned to traditional academic publications.

In the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic the debate surrounding the role of preprints continues to evolve. 

Critics argue that unchecked dissemination of unreviewed science can lead to the spread of misinformation and harm public trust in science. Concerns centred on preprints’ reliability, credibility, and lack of peer review. 

Supporters of preprints call for greater moderation of preprints and the orchestration of peer review of preprints. While more stringent moderation of preprints may be a rational response, others worry that tightening controls on preprints could hinder the speed and openness that make them valuable in the first place. 

To help inform this debate, we at SFU’s ScholCommLab have in recent years been conducting research on various aspects of preprints. Taken together, these studies offer empirical evidence to inform a nuanced vision for the future for preprints—with or without peer review.

Drawbacks to the quest for credibility

One of the biggest hurdles for widespread preprint adoption is the perception that they are lower-quality or less trustworthy than peer reviewed journal articles. By interviewing preprint server managers, we found that preprint servers are increasingly implementing credibility building measures beyond established screening procedures, even as they remain concerned about striking the right balance between offering trust and quality signals and replicating the pitfalls of traditional journals. Approaches vary, with some servers using methods and data reporting badges and others preferring lighter approaches, such as community endorsements and/or annotations.

 There is a risk that such close alignment with journals, and the costs associated with it, will alter the openness, flexibility, and accessibility that have been preprints’ core strengths

Another strategy to enhance trust and drive adoption has been to associate preprints with the prestige and peer review processes of journals by integrating more closely with their editorial workflows. While this may boost confidence in preprints and encourage their use, it also limits their potential to transform scholarly communication by constraining preprints to manuscripts, formats, and topics that are destined for journal peer-review. As preprint servers become integrated into these workflows, and as they take on certification and other editorial responsibilities traditionally associated with journals, questions also arise about their economic sustainability and whether journals’ strategic priorities will shape the preprint landscape. There is a risk that such close alignment with journals, and the costs associated with it, will alter the openness, flexibility, and accessibility that have been preprints’ core strengths.

Moderation or gatekeeping?

Moderation is perhaps the most significant responsibility being taken on by preprint servers. But how do preprint servers actually moderate (or screen) submissions? Are preprints really like “unruly” teenagers who require “more adult supervision”? Through our interviews with preprint server managers, we gained an in-depth understanding of how different servers vet and filter submissions, and what values and concerns underpin moderation practices across different contexts. We found that servers operate with a strong sense of responsibility toward their communities, the scholarly record, and the public with approaches and practices that differ based on their ownership, discipline, and geography. 

Managers often feel the pressure to establish and maintain robust screening processes to target concerns that flawed preprints could end-up misleading non-scientists and negatively shape the public’s perception of science

While our study provides robust evidence against claims that servers allow information to spread unchecked, it also uncovers the challenges these servers face in establishing trust while balancing the need for openness and speed. Managers often feel the pressure to establish and maintain robust screening processes to target concerns that flawed preprints could end-up misleading non-scientists and negatively shape the public’s perception of science. At the same time, the methods and heuristics used to gatekeep against misusers and mitigate information risk can unwittingly exclude already disadvantaged researchers (early career, those at lesser known or less established institutions, and those without institutional affiliations). Thus, our findings also highlight a key tension: too much moderation might transform preprints into yet another gatekeeping mechanism, undermining their value as a fast, accessible route for early research dissemination.

Journalists have adapted to the preprint landscape

Understandably, concerns around preprints grew along with their circulation in mainstream and alternative media during the pandemic. It is true that preprints were a vital tool for rapid dissemination of COVID-19 information and were covered at an unprecedented rate by media outlets. However, our analysis of preprint media coverage suggests that journalists’ approach to covering preprints changed as the pandemic progressed. 

Today, the media appear to be using preprints more selectively, perhaps because they have become more familiar with the risks. This shift suggests that, outside of crisis situations, preprints’ role in media coverage is likely to be more restrained, focusing on verified science. This is supported by our earlier research, which found that many health and science journalists approach reporting on preprints as a careful calculation, balancing the potential risks against the possible benefits of sharing unreviewed findings.

the media appear to be using preprints more selectively, perhaps because they have become more familiar with the risks

While more research is needed, not least in other kinds of research-based journalism, many journalists are demonstrating a capacity to responsibly navigate the preprint landscape. If the media, who play a critical role in shaping public trust in science, has already adjusted its approach to preprints, is increased formal screening really necessary? 

Keeping preprints, preprints

As we consider a future for preprints, we must take care that our efforts to mitigate preprints’ potential risks do not simultaneously undermine their benefits. The very qualities that make preprints valuable (speed, accessibility, and low barriers to entry) could be lost if we impose the same standards as traditional peer-reviewed journals. While peer review plays an important role in maintaining the integrity of scientific literature, preprints have shown their worth as a complementary tool that thrives on informal review and open discussion.

Rather than rushing to formalise preprints, we should gather more evidence on how, by whom, and to what effect they are being used outside of the context of a public health emergency. For example, why have journalists slowed their use of preprints? Is this true across the media landscape or are we seeing different patterns across different contexts? How effective are the different preprint moderation practices at quelling misinformation? And what are the costs of bringing in such practices in terms of whose research gets shared, cited, and used? These are important questions that warrant investigation before we overcorrect.

As we continue to debate the future of preprints, we should be wary of actions that threaten to efface the very qualities that make preprints, preprints—and all of the benefits they bring. Over-formalising the vetting process, or aligning preprints too closely with journals’ peer review workflows, could slow the dissemination of new findings and create barriers to rapid communication. Such consequences could be particularly harmful during future public health crises or other emergencies.

The content generated on this blog is for information purposes only. This Article gives the views and opinions of the authors and does not reflect the views and opinions of the Impact of Social Science blog (the blog), nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Please review our comments policy if you have any concerns on posting a comment below.

Image Credit: Cagkan Sayin on Shutterstock.