Preprints and Scholarly Communication: An Exploratory Qualitative Study of Adoption, Practices, Drivers and Barriers
Open accessAbstract
Background : Since 2013, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of preprint servers. Little is known about the position of researchers, funders, research performing organisations and other stakeholders with respect to this fast-paced landscape. In this article, we explore the perceived benefits and challenges of preprint posting, alongside issues including infrastructure and financial sustainability. We also discuss the definition of a ‘preprint’ in different communities, and the impact this has on uptake. Methods : This study is based on 38 semi-structured interviews of key stakeholders, based on a purposive heterogeneous sampling approach and undertaken between October 2018 and January 2019. Interviewees were primarily drawn from biology, chemistry and psychology, where use of preprints is growing. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis to identify trends. Interview questions were designed based on Innovation Diffusion Theory, which was also used to interpret our results. Results : Participants were conscious of the rising prominence of preprints and cited early and fast dissemination as their most appealing feature. Preprints were also considered to enable broader access to scientific literature and increased opportunities for informal commenting. The main concerns related to the lack of quality assurance and the ‘Ingelfinger rule’. We identified trust as an essential factor in preprint posting, and highlight the enabling role of Twitter in showcasing preprints. Conclusions : The preprints landscape is evolving fast, and disciplinary communities are at different stages in the innovation diffusion process. The landscape is characterised by experimentation, which leads to the conclusion that a one-size-fits-all approach to preprints is not feasible. Cooperation and active engagement between the stakeholders involved will play an important role going forward. We share questions for the further development of the preprints landscape, with the most important being whether preprint posting will develop as a publisher- or researcher-centric practice.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
There is a 6-month median lag between posting of a preprint and subsequent journal publication.
“and are underscored by the 6-month median lag between posting of a preprint and subsequent journal publication [8,16].”
From The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape (2021) · cites this paper as [16]
The Introduction’s literature review says preprints are made available before formal publication, and the Results describe journal peer review and publication as often lengthy. Neither section reports a median lag or supports the specific six-month figure (searched: “6-month median lag,” “median time,” and “six months”). (LLM, conf=0.84)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredA recent study involving qualitative interviews of multiple research stakeholders found "early and rapid dissemination" to be among the most often cited benefits of preprints.
“A recent study involving qualitative interviews of multiple research stakeholders found “early and rapid dissemination” to be among the most often cited benefits of preprints [16].”
From The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape (2021) · cites this paper as [16]
One of the primary concerns among authors around posting preprints is premature media coverage.
“One of the primary concerns among authors around posting preprints is premature media coverage [16,31].”
From The evolving role of preprints in the dissemination of COVID-19 research and their impact on the science communication landscape (2021) · cites this paper as [16]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414 · see citing works
Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints
Abdill, R. J., & Blekhman, R. (2019) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.45133 · Cited by 196 · see citing works
Carneiro, C. F. D., Queiroz, V. G. S., Moulin, T. C., Carvalho, C. A. M., Haas, C. B., Rayêe, D., Henshall, D. E., De-Souza, E. A., Amorim, F. E., Boos, F. Z., et al. (2020) · Research Integrity and Peer Review · doi:10.1186/s41073-020-00101-3 · Cited by 146 · see citing works
Preprints: An underutilized mechanism to accelerate outbreak science
Johansson, M. A., Reich, N. G., Meyers, L. A., & Lipsitch, M. (2018) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002549 · Cited by 136 · see citing works
The prehistory of biology preprints: A forgotten experiment from the 1960s
Cobb, M. (2017) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.2003995 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Green, T. (2019) · Learned Publishing · doi:10.1002/leap.1219 · Cited by 78 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 57
- ASAPbio: University policies and statements on hiring, promotion, and journal license negotiation. (n.d.). Reference Source
- Balaji B Dhanamjaya M: Preprints in Scholarly Communication: Re-Imagining Metrics and Infrastructures. Publications. 2019; 7(1): 6 10.3390/publications7010006 · DOI
- Ball P: Leading mathematician launches arXiv "overlay" journal. Nature. 2015[cited 2019 Oct 11]; 526(7571): 146 10.1038/nature.2015.18351 · DOI
- Baughman S Roebuck G Arlitsch K: Reporting practices of institutional repositories: Analysis of responses from two surveys. J Libr Adm. 2018; 58(1): 65– 80. 10.1080/01930826.2017.1399705 · DOI
- Berg JM Bhalla N Bourne PE: SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY. Preprints for the life sciences. Science. 2016; 352(6288): 899– 901. 10.1126/science.aaf9133 27199406 · DOI
- bioRxiv. Reference Source
- Bourne PE Polka JK Vale RD: Ten simple rules to consider regarding preprint submission. PLoS Comput Biol. 2017; 13(5): e1005473. 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1005473 28472041 PMC5417409 · DOI
- Callaway E: Preprints come to life. Nature. 2013; 503(7475): 180. 10.1038/503180a 24226869 · DOI
- Cambridge University Press: Cambridge announces open research platform. 2019 Reference Source
- Carà PD Ciriminna R Pagliaro M: Has the time come for preprints in chemistry? ACS Omega. 2017; 2(11): 7923– 7928. 10.1021/acsomega.7b01190 31457346 PMC6645332 · DOI
- Chodacki J Lemberger T Lin J: Technical aspects of preprint services in the life sciences: a workshop report. Res Ideas Outcomes. 2017; 3: e11825 10.3897/rio.3.e11825 · DOI
- Davis PM Fromerth MJ: Does the arXiv lead to higher citations and reduced publisher downloads for mathematics articles? Scientometrics. 2007; 71(2): 203– 215. 10.1007/s11192-007-1661-8 · DOI
- Desjardins-Proulx P White EP Adamson JJ: The case for open preprints in biology. PLoS Biol. 2013; 11(5): e1001563. 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001563 23690752 PMC3653830 · DOI
- Fraser J Polka J: Together scientists and journalists can spot poor preprints. Nature. 2018; 560(7720): 553. 10.1038/d41586-018-06053-5 30158617 · DOI
- Fraser N Momeni F Mayr P: The effect of bioRxiv preprints on citations and altmetrics. BioRxiv. 2019 10.1101/673665 · DOI
- Fry NK Marshall H Mellins-Cohen T: In praise of preprints. Microb Genom. 2019; 5(4): e000259. 10.1099/mgen.0.000259 30938670 PMC6521583 · DOI
- Fu DY Hughey JJ: Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the peer-reviewed article. BioRxiv. 2019 10.1101/699652 PMC6914335 31808742 · DOI
- Ginsparg P: Preprint Déjà Vu. EMBO J. 2016; 35(24): 2620– 2625. 10.15252/embj.201695531 27760783 PMC5167339 · DOI
- Hampson C: The adoption of open access funds among Canadian academic research libraries, 2008-2012. Partnership: The Canadian Journal of Library and Information Practice and Research. 2014; 9(2): 2008– 2012. 10.21083/partnership.v9i2.3115 · DOI
- Harnad S: The Invisible Hand of Peer Review. Nature. 1998 Reference Source
- Jones R Andrew T MacColl J: The institutional repository. Oxford: Chandos Publishing. 2006 Reference Source
- Kaiser J: The preprint dilemma. Science. 2017; 357(6358): 1344– 1349. 10.1126/science.357.6358.1344 28963238 · DOI
- Kelly AR Autry MK: Access, accommodation, and science: Knowledge in an "open" world. First Monday. 2013; 18(6). 10.5210/fm.v18i6.4341 · DOI
- Klein M Broadwell P Farb SE: Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions. 2016; 1– 16.
- Kleinert S Horton R Editors of the Lancet family of journals: Preprints with The Lancet: joining online research discussion platforms. Lancet. 2018; 391(10139): 2482– 2483. 10.1016/S0140-6736(18)31125-5 29976456 · DOI
- Kling R McKim G: Not just a matter of time: Field differences and the shaping of electronic media in supporting scientific communication. J Am Soc Inf Sci. 2000; 51(14): 1306– 1320. 10.1002/1097-4571(2000)9999:9999<::AID-ASI1047>3.0.CO;2-T · DOI
- Krumholz HM Ross JS Otto CM: Will research preprints improve healthcare for patients? BMJ. 2018; 362: k3628. 10.1136/bmj.k3628 30249719 · DOI
- Larivière V Sugimoto CR Macaluso B: arXiv E-prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships. J Assoc Inf Sci Technol. 2014; 65(6): 1157– 1169. 10.1002/asi.23044 · DOI
- Lauer MS Krumholz HM Topol EJ: Time for a prepublication culture in clinical research? Lancet. 2015; 386(10012): 2447– 2449. 10.1016/S0140-6736(15)01177-0 26738703 PMC5082701 · DOI · Paper page
- Lee CJ Sugimoto CR Zhang G: Bias in peer review. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol. 2013; 64(1): 2– 17. 10.1002/asi.22784 · DOI · Paper page
- Leopold SS Haddad FS Sandell LJ: Editorial: Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, The Bone & Joint Journal, The Journal of Orthopaedic Research, and The Journal of Bone and Joint Surgery Will Not Accept Clinical Research Manuscripts Previously Posted to Preprint Servers. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2019; 477(1): 1– 4. 10.1097/CORR.0000000000000565 30586061 PMC6345289 · DOI
- Mallapaty S: Indian scientists launch preprint repository to boost research quality. Nature. 2019 10.1038/d41586-019-01082-0 32296152 · DOI
- Martín-Martín A Costas R van Leeuwen T: Evidence of open access of scientific publications in Google Scholar: A large-scale analysis. J Informetr. 2018; 12(3): 819– 841. 10.17605/OSF.IO/K54UV · DOI
- McKiernan EC Schimanski LA Nieves CM: Use of the Journal Impact Factor in academic review, promotion, and tenure evaluations. 2019 10.7287/peerj.preprints.27638v2 PMC6668985 31364991 · DOI
- Nallamothu BK Hill JA: Preprints and Cardiovascular Science: Prescient or Premature? Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2017; 10(9): pii: e000033. 10.1161/HCQ.0000000000000033 28912199 · DOI
- Neylon C Pattinson D Bilder G: On the origin of nonequivalent states: How we can talk about preprints [version 1; peer review: 2 approved]. F1000Res. 2017; 6: 608. 10.12688/f1000research.11408.1 28620459 PMC5461893 · DOI
- Nicholas D Watkinson A Volentine R: Trust and authority in scholarly communications in the light of the digital transition: Setting the scene for a major study. Learn Publ. 2014; 27(2): 121– 134. 10.1087/20140206 · DOI
- Pinfield S: Self-archiving publications. In G. Gorman & F. Rowland (Eds.), Scholarly Publishing in and Electronic Era: International Yearbook of Library and Information Management 2004-2005 London: Facet Publishing. 2004; 118– 145. Reference Source
- Pinfield S Middleton C: Researchers’ adoption of an institutional central fund for open-access article-processing charges: A case study using Innovation Diffusion Theory. SAGE Open. 2016; 6(1). 10.1177/2158244015625447 · DOI
- Rittman M: Preprints as a Hub for Early-Stage Research Outputs. 2018 10.20944/preprints201806.0243.v1 · DOI
- Rogers EM: Diffusion of innovations. (5th ed.). New York: The Free Press. 2003 Reference Source
- Sarabipour S Debat HJ Emmott E: On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective. PLoS Biol. 2019; 17(2): e3000151. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151 30789895 PMC6400415 · DOI
- Sarabipour S: Preprints are good for science and good for the public. 2018 Reference Source 30158619
- Sever R Eisen M Inglis J: Plan U: Universal access to scientific and medical research via funder preprint mandates. PLoS Biol. 2019; 17(6): e3000273. 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000273 31163026 PMC6548351 · DOI
- Sheldon T: Preprints could promote confusion and distortion. Nature. 2018; 559(7715): 445. 10.1038/d41586-018-05789-4 30042547 · DOI
- Smith A: The journal as an overlay on preprint databases. Learn Publ. 2000; 13(1): 43– 8. 10.1087/09531510050145542 · DOI
- Smith JWT: The deconstructed journal - a new model for academic publishing. Learn Publ. 1999; 12(2): 79– 91. 10.1087/09531519950145896 · DOI
- Suber P: Open Access. MIT Press. 2012 Reference Source
- Teixeira da Silva JA: The preprint wars. AME Med J. 2017; 2: 74 10.21037/amj.2017.05.23 · DOI
- Teixeira da Silva JA Dobránszki J: Preprint policies among 14 academic publishers. J Acad Libr. 2019; 45(2): 162– 170. 10.1016/j.acalib.2019.02.009 · DOI
- Tennant J Bauin S James S: The evolving preprint landscape: Introductory report for the Knowledge Exchange working group on preprints. BITSS. 2018; 5 10.17605/OSF.IO/796TU · DOI
- Tennant J Gatto L Logan C: Preprints help journalism, not hinder it. Nature. 2018; 560(7720): 553. 10.1038/d41586-018-06055-3 30158616 · DOI
- Tennant J Crane H Crick T: Ten hot topics around scholarly publishing. Publications. 2019; 7(2): 34 10.3390/publications7020034 · DOI
- Vale RD: Accelerating scientific publication in biology. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2015; 112(44): 13439– 13446. 10.1073/pnas.1511912112 26508643 PMC4640799 · DOI · Paper page
- Wang X Cui Y Xu S: The state and evolution of Gold open access: a country and discipline level analysis. Aslib J Inform Manag. 2018; 70(5): 573– 584. 10.1108/AJIM-02-2018-0023 · DOI
- Warr WA: Evaluation of an experimental chemistry preprint server. J Chem Inf Comput Sci. 2003; 43(2): 362– 373. 10.1021/ci025627a 12653498 · DOI
- Xia J: Diffusionism and open access. J Doc. 2012; 68(1): 72– 99. 10.1108/00220411211200338 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Fraser, N., Brierley, L., Dey, G., Polka, J. K., Pálfy, M., Nanni, F., & Coates, J. A. (2021) · PLOS Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pbio.3000959 · Cited by 555 · see citing works
Analysis of single comments left for bioRxiv preprints till September 2019
Malički, M., Costello, J., Alperin, J. P., & Maggio, L. A. (2021) · Biochemia medica · doi:10.11613/bm.2021.020201 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
Dobusch, L., & Heimstädt, M. (2024) · Philosophy & Social Criticism · doi:10.1177/01914537231203558 · Cited by 8 · see citing works
- Authors
- Chiarelli, A., Johnson, R., Pinfield, S., & Richens, E.
- Affiliations
- University of Sheffield (GB)
- Venue
- F1000Research
- Publisher
- F1000 Research Ltd
- Published
- 2019-11-25
- Volume
- 8
- Pages
- 971
- ISSN
- 2046-1402 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6961415
- OpenAlex
- W2955862523
- Cited by
- 79
- References
- 6
- Citations by year
- 2026: 6 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 16 · 2020: 8 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 10.06
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- public-domain
- creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (tdm)
- Locations
- F1000Research (publishedVersion, public-domain)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- White Rose Research Online (University of Leeds, The University of Sheffield, University of York) (acceptedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Knowledge Exchange
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Academic Publishing and Open Access
- Social Sciences › Arts and Humanities › History and Philosophy of Science › Publishing and Scholarly Communication
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
- Keywords
- preprints, preprint servers, scholarly communication, diffusion of innovation theory, stakeholder perspectives, quality assurance, Twitter, early dissemination, financial sustainability, open access
- MeSH terms
- Scholarly Communication, Preprints as Topic, Humans, Publishing, Research Personnel
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
