Contents

PreprintEdit

A preprint is a version of a scholarly manuscript posted publicly before it has undergone formal peer review. It serves as an early, openly accessible record of research findings, inviting feedback from the community and allowing researchers to establish priority for discoveries. The practice spans many fields, from physics and mathematics to economics and the life sciences, and has grown alongside the broader move toward open access and faster dissemination of knowledge. Prominent platforms such as arXiv and its ecosystem, bioRxiv and medRxiv for biosciences and health sciences, and the SSRN family for the social sciences, are widely used to share preprints. Researchers also post on field-specific venues like chemRxiv for chemistry or engrXiv for engineering, each with its own conventions and communities. Some preprint servers operate under permissive licenses that enable broad reuse, making preprints a central piece of the modern open science landscape.

The rise of preprints reflects a broader preference for speed, transparency, and competitive accountability in research. Since the early days of arXiv in the 1990s, the idea has been to accelerate the exchange of ideas and reduce the delay between discovery and public scrutiny. In recent years, the model has expanded into fields where clinical implications are possible, bringing new questions about how unreviewed results should inform policy, journalism, and medical practice. As with any new step in the scholarly workflow, preprints interact with established norms around publication, licensing, and the credibility of scientific claims. The relationship between preprints and traditional journals is now characterized by coexistence and an evolving set of policies from publishers and research institutions. See the history of preprints in various disciplines, including the role of physicists and mathematicians in shaping early norms for rapid dissemination.

History and scope

The concept of sharing research before formal peer review has roots in the pre-digital era, but the modern preprint system took shape with the launch of arXiv in 1991, a centralized repository for electronic preprints in the physical sciences and mathematics. This model popularized the idea that research ideas could be circulated early and improved through community input. In the 2010s, preprint servers expanded beyond physics, with bioRxiv and medRxiv launching to cover the life sciences and health sciences, respectively. The social sciences and humanities joined the trend through platforms such as SSRN and related sites. The expansion was driven by a combination of demand for rapid communication, a push toward greater open access, and a recognition that formal journal publication can be a lengthy bottleneck. See the history of priority in science, and the role of preprints in establishing priority for researchers.

The global research ecosystem now includes a diverse set of preprint venues. Some disciplines emphasize rapid, iterative improvement of manuscripts, while others use preprints to invite broad community critique and replication efforts. The ecosystem also intersects with policy debates about how non-peer-reviewed materials should be treated in media coverage, clinical decision-making, and public understanding of science. References to peer review and the broader publishing process help distinguish the preprint stage from the final, vetted record.

How preprints work

Posting a preprint typically involves uploading a manuscript to a suitable server, selecting licensing terms, and optionally registering a Digital Object Identifier (DOI) to ensure stable citation. Preprints can be revised after initial posting, with new versions retaining a link to earlier iterations. This versioning allows authors to incorporate feedback while preserving a transparent record of changes. Licensing choices—such as Creative Commons options—affect how others may reuse the material. Some journals and publishers permit submission of work that has appeared as a preprint, while others have specific rules; researchers should consult policy pages of Nature journal or Science and platform guidelines to ensure compatibility. See also the practical aspects of copyright and the legal status of open access.

Preprints contribute to the scholarly record by providing an early citation point and a mechanism for community commentary. They are often indexed by search engines and integrated into bibliographic workflows, enabling faster discovery. The practice relies on clear communication about the manuscript's status—namely that it has not yet undergone formal peer review—and on cautious interpretation by readers, journalists, and policymakers. The trend toward immediate sharing is accompanied by robust discussions about how best to convey uncertainty and to distinguish preliminary findings from validated conclusions. See preprint server and the relationship to peer review.

Platforms and communities

Different disciplines favor different preprint ecosystems. In physics and mathematics, arXiv remains a central hub for early dissemination. In the life sciences, bioRxiv and medRxiv have become standard venues for sharing results prior to publication in journals. The SSRN family serves many social sciences and humanities fields, while engineering and computing researchers sometimes use engrXiv or other discipline-specific servers. Each platform has its own norms around licensing, posting timing, and how to handle disputes or corrections. See also discussions of how journals and preprint servers interact in the scholarly communication ecosystem, including how major publishers approach submissions that have appeared as preprints on platforms like arXiv or bioRxiv.

Preprint platforms often foster active communities where researchers provide feedback, perform informal reviews, and even attempt replications. This informal critique can help identify methodological issues, data limitations, and potential errors before formal peer review. Critics sometimes worry about the spread of unvetted claims; supporters argue that transparent critique is a strength of the model, turning preprints into living documents that can be improved through collaborative scrutiny. See open science and scientific communication.

Benefits

  • Speed and accessibility: Research can be shared with the global community long before journal publication, accelerating the diffusion of ideas. See rapid communication and open access.
  • Priority and attribution: Posting a preprint can establish a timestamped claim to discoveries, helping researchers safeguard ideas in competitive fields. See priority of discovery.
  • Community feedback: Early visibility invites critique, replication attempts, and methodological improvements, potentially strengthening the final published work. See post-publication peer review.
  • Broad accessibility: Many preprints are openly accessible, reducing barriers to entry for researchers, students, policymakers, and the public. See open access.

Limitations and debates

  • Non-peer-reviewed status: Preprints have not undergone formal quality checks, so results must be interpreted cautiously. Journalists and policymakers should distinguish preliminary findings from verified conclusions. See peer review and scientific communication.
  • Misinterpretation and media impact: Unvetted results can be misconstrued by the media or applied in policy before validation, which can create confusion or harm in sensitive areas such as health care. See science journalism and risk communication.
  • Clinical and regulatory concerns: In medicine, unreviewed results can influence patient care or guideline development; many institutions advocate paired caution with clear disclaimers. See clinical research and health policy.
  • Publication policies and incentives: Some publishers restrict or favor certain workflows, and researchers must navigate a patchwork of policies regarding preprints, journal submissions, and copyright. See publication ethics and copyright.
  • Quality and reproducibility questions: Critics argue preprints can enable the spread of flawed or irreproducible results; proponents counter that the open critique and rapid revision inherent in preprints improve overall reliability. See reproducibility crisis and scientific integrity.

Controversies around preprints often center on balancing speed with reliability. Proponents emphasize that rapid sharing expands the collective expertise available to scrutinize methods and data, while critics warn about the noise-to-signal ratio in a crowded, fast-moving landscape. From a practical standpoint, many in the research community advocate pairing preprints with transparent licensing, clear methodological detail, and explicit disclaimers about the review status to minimize misunderstandings. The dialogue also includes discussions about how preprints intersect with open access goals, patent considerations, and the incentives faced by researchers in competitive fields. See policy discussions on preprint uptake and research funding.

See also