Preprints are a growing part of the open access publishing world. Between climbing numbers across each discipline and a reputation that continues to improve, preprints are being adopted globally. They started as a way to share information more quickly, especially early, time-sensitive medical research. Now, preprints are a respected practice. From researchers in the 1960s looking to get around “snail mail” to modern academics making use of the accessibility of the internet, preprints are vital to spreading information. The road to acceptance wasn’t short, though. Even today, there’s still hesitancy around open science and preprints. But the research landscape is still changing, and preprints are changing alongside it for the better. In honor of Preprints.org’s 10th anniversary, let’s take a look at the history of preprints and why they’re here to stay.
From gatekeeping to open access
Despite the benefits of traditional publishing, scientists are always looking for ways to share their work more readily. Informal communication that prioritized speed was a budding aspect of the research process. And after seven Informal Exchange Groups (IEGs) cropped up in the 1960s, the practice of sending work that was in progress rather than complete began to take hold. There were critics of this method. Scientists questioned the validity and ownership of information without quality control measures. But, with expanding tools and technology, more ways to address these issues have been developed.
With the invention of the internet 30 years later, scientists, especially in the physics and mathematics disciplines, were eager to see what it could do. Naturally, the speed of sending documents made preprints more attractive and accessible. Two significant servers were developed in the 1990s: arXiv.org and SSRN. The goal of both services was to reduce barriers in the scientific community and make research possible for those without funding. Expanding the preprint network meant that regulations were also needed.
A changing landscape
In 2002, the Budapest Open Access Initiative (BOAI) was introduced. First, they defined open access as research that was free to the public, enabling engagement in any way the user saw fit. This included downloading the material, copying it, or reproducing it for any lawful purpose. So long as authors could maintain their credit and copyright, their work should be accessible to all. The BOAI also encouraged authors to self-archive their work on the internet and start their own open access journals in order to help their fellow scholars share their work. The goal was community building. Scientists all over the world wanted to connect with each other and reduce barriers to communication and scientific progress.
Furthering this movement was the Bethesda Statement and Berlin Declaration on Open Access to Knowledge in the Sciences and Humanities. The Bethesda Statement carved a path for the adoption of open access in the publishing industry in 2003 by building on the Budapest Open Access Initiative. It stated that authors are to grant unlimited and timeless access to their work and the ability to adapt it. The Berlin Declaration mirrored this idea, hosting a conference attended by more than 120 global organizations. Two decades later, the declaration has received 828 signatures.
All three of these statements helped to popularize and validate the open access movement.
Knowledge sharing through preprints
Preprints.org, initially conceived in 1998 by MDPI, launched in 2016. This was thanks to the scientific community’s interest in open science. Making use of the established initiatives, Preprints.org and platforms like it could give scientists the resources they needed to share information. Quality control was getting better, too. More scientists participating in open access publishing provided a wider range of perspectives. Research could be updated as tests were conducted. Finally, crowdsourcing feedback enabled open, honest, and rapid dialogue. With more eyes and ways to contribute to the research, collaboration, one of the aims of preprints, was expanding. Preprints also gave scientists in underfunded institutions and regions access to information and tools.
Without the price tags or hurdles attached to traditional publishing, opportunities to share work were, and still are, balancing. On top of that, staying up-to-date on current research shrinks the gap in the race toward discovery.
How COVID-19 shaped progress in preprints
Without a pressing crisis, it’s easy to disregard the importance of rapid knowledge sharing. It’s also easy to worry about the validity of papers submitted as preprints when there isn’t a peer-review process to check them. But, during the COVID-19 pandemic, scientists had to communicate without borders. People across the globe were in need of help, and with COVID-19’s novelty, any potential breakthroughs had to be transmitted quickly. Because of this, traditional modes of publication could not be upheld. Information had to be shared as soon as it was learned.
While the position of journals initially was not in favour of preprints, over time, these views shifted. In many cases, quickly.
Preprints made knowledge transfer possible during the COVID-19 pandemic. Rather, scientists and researchers were publishing their findings in real-time. Their papers were also citable and could be used to further research all across the globe. With such high demand coming from scientists, preprint platforms saw their membership and paper views skyrocket. While things have tempered over the last couple years, the value gained during the pandemic thanks to preprints has not been lost.
An openly accessible culture
Although many scientific communities have embraced preprints, there are still some that are hesitant. For example, social studies and humanities circles are among the lowest contributors, and regions, such as East Asia, have been slow to adopt the practice. This is likely because of the cultural differences surrounding academia, where in East Asia, traditional publishing is still held in a higher regard. Additionally, humanities research looks much different than that of physics, for example, and scholars may not view incomplete research as valuable.
And while great efforts have been made to mitigate issues such as stolen work and incorrect information in open access publishing, there are still ways to improve in the future. Standards are being set, such as the UNESCO Recommendation on Open Science. This aims to teach digital literacy and encourage openness to different research approaches. By fostering greater understanding, instances of theft and low-quality work can be addressed collaboratively.
The impact of preprints
Regardless of what side of publishing you fall on, it is undeniable that preprints are here to stay. And while traditional publishing has its merits, with more time and ideas, preprints and the open access landscape can assess work better and create roadways for progress. Without preprints, though, knowledge wouldn’t be shared as swiftly and easily. Not all research can be done independently, and preprints have shown us that help can come from everywhere. It is important to listen to voices and perspectives from all over the globe, especially from underfunded countries. Even with some imperfections in the current system, there is no growth without learning from and solving them.
After 10 years, Preprints.org is proud to continue serving our community by making research openly accessible to the public and scientists. Our forums and the knowledge gained are extensive, and we hope to grow and change as we discover new ways to make science open.
