In today’s Researcher Voices, we hear from Prof. Abhinandan R. Patil, an associate professor at DY Patil College of Pharmacy in India. Prof. Patil shares how preprints have helped him publish faster, connect with a global scientific network, and promote interdisciplinary collaboration. We hope that you enjoy reading about his views.
This video was produced by Encyclopedia, which offers an Academic Video Service to help researchers share their work in an accessible and engaging. You can see more of Prof. Abhinandan R. Patil’s work on Encyclopedia.pub.
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this interview are those of the interviewee and do not necessarily reflect the views of Preprints.org. As part of our mission to share early research quickly, openly, and globally, we encourage open dialogue and welcome diverse perspectives. Section headings have been titled to reflect the questions asked.
Here is the full interview:
Dr. Patil’s research focus and academic journey
I’m Dr. Abhinandan Patil, currently a professor at DY Patil College of Pharmacy, part of DY Patil Education Society in Kolhapur, Maharashtra, India. My research focuses on nutraceuticals, health science, and healthcare, including areas related to diagnostics and artificial intelligence.
We also work in cancer-related research, studying how food-based components, microbiology, and probiotic formulations may help individuals fight disease. In addition, we explore how the gut microbiota, the microorganisms in the gastrointestinal tract, can influence psychological health, especially in cases where cancer develops without common risk factors like addiction.
Overall, our work combines aspects of health, food, AI, and psychology to better understand and address major health challenges.
What motivated you to first share your work as a preprint?
In 2023, I had an idea related to artificial intelligence and medicinal research that I wanted to share. Initially, I considered submitting it to a journal, but I realized that most journals were looking for more detailed studies, and the process was time-consuming.
Instead, I decided to post it as a preprint. The research was based on a basic scientific idea, and I wanted to see how it would be received. After posting it, I received feedback through email and LinkedIn, with people expressing interest and appreciation. That helped build a sense of scientific community.
For researchers like us who want to share ideas quickly and globally, even without monetary benefits, preprints are a great option. They help connect researchers, fill gaps in technology or expertise, and create opportunities for collaboration.
What benefits have you seen from sharing your work on Preprints.org?
One of the biggest benefits is the fast and wide access. When we shared our research as a preprint, it reached many readers in a short time. We even received notifications about how many times the paper was downloaded or viewed, which was encouraging.
Compared to traditional journals, which often take a long time to publish and may restrict access through paywalls, preprints allowed us to share our early findings openly and quickly. That visibility helped us reach our target audience and gave us motivation to keep going.
How did you discover Preprints.org and what made you choose it?
I came across Preprints.org during an online search for platforms where I could share our research. There are many options out there. It was more of a serendipitous discovery; we found it by chance, tried it, and were very happy with the results. It turned out to be a great fit for sharing our work.
How is preprint sharing viewed in India’s academic community, particularly in your field?
In my experience, very few researchers in our group are using preprints. One reason is skepticism. Some people believe that since preprints aren’t peer-reviewed, their credibility is questionable. There are still concerns about whether the content is genuine.
But I see this as an early stage. We are among the first in our circle to adopt preprints, and I believe it’s a good platform for sharing preliminary research. It helps our ideas reach others more quickly, even if not everyone is on board yet. Our team has different perspectives, but I personally feel it’s a valuable way to present our work.
How do preprint perceptions differ across countries you’ve worked with?
In our research group, we collaborate with people from different countries who share similar goals and interests. Through our discussions, we’ve found that many researchers, especially those we work with, are open to using preprints.
It’s not just researchers; students from different domains are also reading preprints to learn how research is done and written. They benefit from early access to new ideas.
One suggestion I have is to create better ways for readers to share feedback directly with authors. If a reader has suggestions or comments, and the platform allows those to reach the author easily, it could lead to more meaningful discussions and improvements.
What role do you think preprints will play in the future of academic publishing?
I believe preprints hold a very good potential in academic publishing. Today, researchers and even conferences are looking for faster ways to share new work. In the past, it could take years for an article to get published. Now, with preprints, that process is much quicker.
Early access is a major benefit. Researchers can share their ideas immediately, and if they later want to submit the same work to a journal, they still can; preprints don’t prevent that.
In the future, I think some journals might even consider that if the article is in the preprint. So the good connectivity will be created and preprints may become a mediator for the early access to the journals, also to the researchers who want to get connected.
I also see potential for creating a reviewer network. If researchers with relevant expertise could review preprints in a short time, it would add even more value. That kind of system could help improve trust and encourage more people to use preprints.
What challenges have you faced with preprints, and how did you handle them?
One challenge I’ve faced is criticism from peers. Some colleagues questioned why I was using preprints when the research was strong enough for well-known journals. But for me, the goal was different. I wanted to share smaller studies quickly and reach others without delay. If you want to publish in some other journals, the authorities will also work with you. So many mixed types of reactions are there in the case of the people, the researchers, whom I found near me.
There’s also a perception that preprints don’t go through any review, which makes some people hesitant to trust them. Personally, I’d be happy to review preprints myself if asked, especially if there were a system that allowed fast, focused reviewing.
If we can make preprint peer feedback more visible and efficient, it could help change these perceptions and encourage more researchers to participate.
How do you see preprints supporting your cross-disciplinary research journey?
Today, research is no longer limited to a single field. With the rise of artificial intelligence and the need for broader approaches, researchers often work across multiple domains.
In our case, we might be working in pharmaceutical sciences, but our results also relate to microbiology or psychology. Preprints allow us to share these findings openly, even when they don’t fit neatly into one discipline.
Research today is a team effort. Many people from different backgrounds contribute to a single study. For our group, the goal is to make sure that whatever research we do ultimately benefits society, and preprints give us a way to do that faster and more widely.
What types of preprints do you read, and how do you assess them?
I check the author’s background to see if they have experience in the field. That gives some idea of the work’s credibility.
With experience, you can often tell from the title alone whether a preprint is worth exploring. That’s how I usually assess which ones to read.
How can early-career researchers benefit from using preprints?
As I mentioned earlier, every coin has two sides. There are always positives and negatives.
From a reader’s point of view, when we search for articles on a preprint platform, we often pay attention to titles and abstracts. If those elements are well written and reflect interesting ideas, they immediately catch our attention. We might think, “This researcher is doing something really promising.”
Out of habit, we also tend to look up the author’s background: who they are, what they’ve done before. And sometimes we’re surprised to find that the researcher is completely new to the field. That moment makes us pause and think, “This person has potential.”
But that also highlights a challenge: for new or early-career researchers, especially those publishing for the first time, it can be difficult to fully convey the strength of their ideas. They may not be familiar yet with the journal publication process, and their work might not get the same recognition right away.
Still, many of these researchers are doing excellent work. And when they share it as a preprint, the only thing missing is the formal peer review.
If the preprint is reviewed, and if it’s clearly labeled with the type of review it has undergone, whether double-blind or single-blind, that would go a long way in helping early-career researchers showcase their ideas more confidently.
Later on, they can take that same research, develop it further, and submit it to a journal. That’s another valuable benefit preprints offer.
How can Preprints.org better support researchers like you?
I’ve published several articles on Preprints.org with the goal of providing early access to our research. That has always been the main motivation.
However, I’ve noticed that some submissions were rejected, and as researchers, we didn’t always understand why. Many of my colleagues believed that preprints are always accepted, but I explained that’s not the case; only work with real substance is accepted. In fact, I used my own experience as proof: some of my articles were not accepted, which reflects the platform’s commitment to quality.
One improvement I’d suggest is creating a review team, a group of researchers from different countries and fields, who could review submissions quickly, even just the abstracts. That kind of system would help strengthen the credibility and quality of preprints and support researchers even more in the future.
Share Your Story in Researcher Voices
“Researcher Voices” is an interview series showcasing how preprints influence research today. Through interviews with scholars, we highlight real experiences using preprints. As well as their role in open science and diverse engagements with open science. We’re inviting researchers from all disciplines and regions to share how they use preprints in their work. Sign up to tell your story and inspire others in the global research community.
