Preprints are distinct from peer-reviewed articles in that they don’t undergo a traditional review process. This doesn’t mean, however, that anything goes with preprints. They must still adhere to ethical policies and undergo basic checks by trained editors.
In this article, we’ll investigate the key differences between preprints and traditional peer-reviewed articles, and why publishing a preprint may benefit future peer-reviewed versions of your research.
What is a preprint?
A preprint is essentially a draft of a scholarly article or research paper. Importantly, a preprint is released to the public prior to any traditional peer review process.
Preprints are attractive to authors because they are convenient and provide practical benefits. By foregoing the traditional peer review process, the publication turnaround for preprints is expediated significantly. This means that authors can claim research priority in the subject area they’re publishing in. By using a publicly available preprint service, your research receives a time stamped certification, further protecting your work from plagiarism.
Another important benefit of publishing a preprint is potentially experiencing increased visibility and impact. Preprints are made available to a global audience via open access, thus increasing citation impact and engagement.
Preprints may sound detrimental to research validity, but they are increasingly being recognized in some disciplines as the ‘go to’ source for finding out about research developments. Topical and convenient, preprints help to facilitate the core principles of open science: easy accessibility and dissemination of vital research.
Peer-reviewed articles
Peer-reviewed articles are what the name suggests: research papers that have undergone the traditional peer review process.
Authors begin the process by submitting their article to their desired journal. Scholars or peers in the same field as the author are usually appointed to act as referees for the submitted article. The main objective of the reviewers is to assess the quality, validity, and originality of the research in question. A judgement is then made on the article’s suitability for publication.
The traditional peer review process is a lengthy one. Assessing the content, methodology, and data of an article is a laborious task for referees. They often have to juggle the reviewing process with other research or work commitments. If a research paper requires further corrections before publication, it may require more than one or two rounds of peer review, further extending the entire reviewing process.
Once the reviewer’s concerns and comments have been addressed, the article—like a preprint—is made freely available to access online if the journal adopts an open access policy.
Benefits of preprints vs. peer-reviewed articles
Now we know the technicalities behind preprints and peer-reviewed articles, how do they compare? There are a few factors to consider here.
Publication speed
As we’ve touched upon, the publication speed for preprints is perhaps the greatest draw for authors and researchers. Not having to wait for traditional peer review—which can take between 12–14 weeks on average for scientific papers—allows for research priority and important knowledge to enter the academic ecosystem quickly.
This rapid dissemination of research resolves the issue of delays between submission to publication, which can frustrate researchers. It also frees up research time for authors, who don’t have to go back and forth between revised versions of their research.
Ethics
From what we’ve discussed so far, it may sound like preprints completely avoid the ethical checks necessary to confirm the validity of research. However, this is not the case.
Preprints still adhere to and are protected by ethical policies. (Preprints.org adheres to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) Code of Conduct and Best Practice Guidelines). For example, plagiarism, data fabrication, knowingly providing incorrect information, copyright infringement, inaccurate author attributions, attempts to inappropriately manipulate the screening process, and failures to declare conflicts of interests are among the things not permitted in the publication of a preprint.
Additionally, contrary to the belief that they undergo no form of reviewing, preprints are indeed subject to basic checks by consulted academic editors. This basic standard of checking helps keep misleading information from entering the academic ecosystem while simultaneously facilitating the release of crucial scientific research.
Scope for collaboration
Preprints, by making research available early, broaden the scope for collaboration between researchers. This openness allows researchers to receive early feedback, stimulating discussion and helping improve their work. Comments at this stage can detect inconsistencies early on and help shape the research hypothesis positively.
In this way, preprints are a good way to address any shortcomings in your research. By going through this open, collaborative process, researchers are ensuring their work is in a greater position to face traditional peer review in the future.
Ensuring research wins
Of course, there are understandable concerns surrounding research being released without peer review. Data and methods are unable to be vetted appropriately, and the increase in unvalidated information in already busy research areas may cause issues for those only wanting to access peer-reviewed research.
Despite these limitations, preprints are still incredibly beneficial to authors and the public. They facilitate conversation around important topics, thus leading to the advancement of knowledge in many areas. This is crucial in scientific research, where developments have real-world impacts on public policy and welfare.
Interested in further reading about this topic? Learn more about how preprints benefit research.
