How Preprints Can Help Research Reach Further: A Conversation with Prof. Mohamed Jaber of Ajman University

Sharing findings is only the beginning for researchers. Getting the findings seen and discussed by a wider audience is a whole other challenge. Prof. Mohamed Jaber is currently the Director of Graduate Programs at the College of Dentistry, Ajman University, with over 30 years of experience in dental education and research. His experience with preprints began with the common goal of all researchers: helping research reach a wider audience and gain greater impact.

Prof. Jaber recently joined the Preprints.org Advisory Board. We reached out to him for an interview where he shared perspectives on the benefits of preprints, the challenges still limiting their adoption and how we can help early-career researchers embrace and benefit from early research sharing.

Q: You began using preprints in 2024. What motivated you and your colleagues to try them?

Prof. Jaber: One important reason is the potential citation benefit. Many faculty members wanted their work to be cited because citations can help improve their citation metrics. It was useful for the early dissemination of findings, establishing priority, and inviting community feedback.

It was a generally positive experience. However, I found that visibility, indexing, and engagement of the platform I first tried was somewhat limited compared to larger preprint servers, and the audience reach was narrower than I had hoped.

This experience has made me more attentive to how different preprint platforms serve different disciplinary communities and I am now more interested in supporting platforms like Preprints.org that combine speed with broader discoverability.

Q: How did you first learn about Preprints.org, and what was your impression of it?

Prof. Jaber: I first became aware of Preprints.org through MDPI journal correspondence and academic social media. My initial impression was positive: the platform is user-friendly, submission is straightforward, and the indexing and DOI assignment lend credibility that is often missing from informal sharing channels. I also appreciated the clear linking to MDPI journals, which streamlines the pathway from preprint to peer-reviewed publication.

I understand that Preprints.org content can be discovered through platforms such as Web of Science and Google Scholar, which is an additional advantage. Having a manuscript available and discoverable through these services can help increase its visibility. That is why I have already submitted nearly four manuscripts to Preprints.org.

I would highlight the speed of making research available, along with the potential for greater visibility and citations. These benefits may be particularly attractive to researchers who are looking to increase the reach and impact of their work. Its discoverability through services such as Web of Science is also a plus. If the platform were to be included in Scopus in the future, that could provide an additional advantage. Overall, I see these features as positive aspects of Preprints.org.

Q: How are preprints perceived among researchers at your university and in your department?

Prof. Jaber: Perceptions are mixed but trending positive. Senior faculty are generally supportive, particularly in fast-moving fields where early dissemination matters. Early-career researchers and graduate students are increasingly using preprints to establish visibility and receive feedback before formal submission.

That said, some colleagues remain cautious, citing concerns about priority protection, quality control, citation practices, and institutional recognition. I see part of my role on the Preprints.org Advisory Board as helping to normalize preprints by modeling good practice posting my own work, citing preprints appropriately, and encouraging students to engage with them critically.

Q: What differences have you observed in how researchers across disciplines and regions view and adopt preprints?

Prof. Jaber: Adoptions tend to cluster along a few axes:

Fields with fast-moving, competitive research cycles (high-energy physics, mathematics, computer science, genomics) have long-standing preprint norms. Life sciences and clinical medicine have been slower, largely due to concerns about scooping, patent implications, and the risk of unvetted clinical findings reaching the public. The social sciences and humanities remain the most cautious, often because of book-based publishing cultures, peer-review prestige hierarchies, and concerns about being “scooped” on interpretive work.

Adoption is generally higher in North America and Europe. In parts of Asia, and the Middle East, preprint uptake varies widely and is often shaped by institutional incentives, funder mandates, and whether preprint posting “counts” toward promotion and tenure. In many regions, the perceived risk of posting a preprint pertains to priority, quality signals, or even geopolitical sensitivities, outweighing the perceived benefit.

The biggest drivers are (a) whether preprints are recognized in research assessment and career advancement; (b) awareness and training, especially for early-career researchers; and (c) language and discoverability. If a platform is English-dominant and not integrated with regional indexing systems, it may feel less relevant to local communities.

Q: What should preprint platforms do to encourage wider adoption, particularly in regions where the practice is still developing?

Prof. Jaber: Platforms should work with institutions and national bodies to ensure preprints can be cited, tracked, and credited in promotion and funding decisions. Without this, adoption will remain symbolic.

Supporting metadata, abstracts, or interfaces in regional languages and integrating with regional repositories and indexes can dramatically lower barriers.

In regions where research integrity concerns are heightened, transparent moderation, clear screening criteria, and visible editorial standards are essential. Partnering with local scholarly societies can lend credibility.

Awareness sessions, workshops, and train-the-trainer models at universities are far more effective than top-down mandates.

In some regions, researchers may be cautious about posting work that touches on politically or socially sensitive topics. Platforms should have clear policies and support mechanisms for such cases.

Q: How can preprint platforms better support early-career researchers?

Prof. Jaber: Many early career researchers fear that a preprint will be seen as “not real publication” or will harm their chances with journals. Clear, visible journal policies (e.g., whether preprints are permitted, how they should be cited) and success stories from peers can help.

DOIs, citation tracking, and integration with ORCID and institutional repositories give preprints legitimacy. Some platforms now offer “preprint review” or community feedback mechanisms that can be highlighted in CVs.

Early career researchers often follow the lead of senior colleagues. Creating ambassador programs, ECR editorial boards, or mentorship pairs can normalize preprint posting.

Short, practical sessions on “how to post a preprint,” “how to cite a preprint,” and “how to respond to feedback” are more effective than abstract advocacy.

Clear guidance on timestamping, licensing, and how to handle potential conflicts should be provided.

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 dialog and welcome diverse perspectives.

Explore Prof. Jaber’s research on Preprints.org.

About 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 and diverse engagements with open science.