Research is moving faster than ever, and advancing open science is a critical part of this. As is the need to share research. Preprints enable researchers to share early findings quickly, openly, and globally. In turn, this accelerates the exchange of knowledge and invites early feedback.
To showcase how preprints are influencing research today, we’re launching a new blog series: Researcher Voices. Through interviews with scholars from diverse disciplines, regions, and career stages, we highlight real experiences of using preprints, explore their role in open science, and showcase the diverse ways researchers are engaging with open science.
Here, we interview Professor Youhe Gao from the College of Life Sciences at Beijing Normal University. As an early adopter of preprints, Professor Gao talks about his experience using them, shares his thoughts on the ongoing debate around preprint quality, and offers his perspective on how preprints, as a model of academic communication, might continue to evolve. What follows are his words on various subjects. We hope that you enjoy reading about his views.
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.
Research experience and preprints
In medical research, we believe early diagnosis is key. The sooner you know, the better your chances of stopping a disease from progressing. Once the body’s seriously affected, it’s much harder to reverse the damage. It’s like sunburn: it’s easier to prevent getting burned than to undo it afterward.
We found that urine is a great sample for early diagnosis. Most people assume blood is the best option since it’s connected to all the organs. But our research has shown that blood is too stable. The body has strong mechanisms to keep blood steady, because stability is essential for cell health. This stability means that early signs of disease often don’t show up in the blood. By the time changes show up there, the disease has usually advanced.
Urine, on the other hand, reflects changes earlier. For example, if you drink orange juice, your blood won’t become more acidic, but your urine might. Urine helps the body get rid of what it doesn’t need, so subtle shifts tend to appear there first, even when everything still looks normal in the blood. Once blood starts showing changes, it’s usually a sign that the condition is in a later stage.
That’s why studying urine is a creative and valuable approach to early diagnosis. It can help people catch health issues sooner, take timely action, and avoid complications or more serious outcomes.
Interest in preprints and why publish one
We got interested in preprints after facing some challenges when sharing early results. Any new idea takes time to gain acceptance, whether it’s through publishing or just getting people to take it seriously. For example, when we proposed testing for brain disease using urine, many people didn’t believe it. They said we should be using cerebrospinal fluid instead. Reviewers were skeptical, too, probably because our ideas were new, which made it tough to get published.
Two things really drew us to preprints:
First, we didn’t want to get scooped. The more original and valuable a finding is, the more you worry about someone else publishing it first. Even some Nobel Prize–level research has faced this issue. We’ve had similar experiences, and that’s when we realized how preprints can protect new ideas by establishing priority.
Second, the speed. Traditional peer review can take months, even a year, and there’s always a chance of rejection. That delays progress, and other researchers can’t build on our work if they haven’t seen it. Preprints allow us to share findings quickly so others can read, use, and respond to them right away.
Plus, preprints help shift the focus of evaluation back to the research itself. In the traditional system, your work often gets judged based on the journal’s prestige or the reviewers’ opinions. Preprints skip that step. Your research is shared as-is, and it’s up to the wider community to weigh in. That kind of open, idea-first evaluation is exactly what we’ve always hoped for.
On establishing a journal without peer review
There was an Indian publisher who often invited me to write for them. They didn’t have many submissions, and I had a few ideas I wanted to share. Since their fees were low or sometimes completely free, I wrote a few pieces for them. Later on, they asked me to join the editorial board, and eventually offered me the role of editor-in-chief. I agreed. It felt like a good platform to express ideas.
At some point, I pitched an idea: let’s start a journal that truly puts authors first. Not the readers, not the publishers, just the authors. No peer review. Authors would take full responsibility for what they publish, and once it’s out there, it can’t be taken down. If someone published nonsense, it would be permanently attached to their name. I thought that would encourage more thoughtful publishing.
But the publisher was likely worried about how it would affect their reputation, so the idea didn’t move forward. Still, I think it was a solid concept. Maybe it’ll come eventually in another form, like preprints, or even shape the future of journals.
Some journals claim they don’t do peer review, like eLife, but they still have experts decide whether a submission is worth reviewing. It’s understandable. Real change takes time. But I think more people are starting to recognize the value of preprints and the limitations of the traditional peer review system.
How preprints has impacted his research
One major benefit of preprints is that they establish originality. Once it’s online, it serves as proof: you published it first, and no one can claim otherwise.
However, we faced some challenges early on. Certain journals wouldn’t consider manuscripts that had already been posted as preprints. This was particularly difficult for my students. They worried that using preprints might limit their options for journal publication. And honestly, they weren’t wrong. Many institutions still value where a paper is published more than what it actually says. It’s going to take time for that mindset to change.
Personally, I don’t want to be judged by journal impact factors. I’d rather have people read my work and think, “That’s interesting,” or “I hadn’t thought of it that way.” That kind of recognition means more to me than the prestige of any particular platform.
Are preprints valued in evaluations?
I’ve faced some criticism for posting them. My response has always been: “Let’s talk about the science. What exactly is wrong with my research?” And usually, there’s no clear answer. That, to me, is the point.
If the science holds up, it shouldn’t matter where it’s shared.
Some researchers stay away from preprints because they’re used to relying on external validation. They’re not confident evaluating work independently. But we should encourage more critical thinking. Peer review isn’t perfect. It comes with biases, conflicts of interest, and sometimes it’s just not fair or accurate enough.
If we want to shift how academic work is evaluated, we need to change it right. As long as early-career researchers keep hearing that journal impact factors are what count, they’ll play along. But real scientific value comes from originality and innovation. Even if an idea turns out to be wrong, if it’s original and gets people thinking, that’s already a contribution.
Preprints give space for those kinds of ideas to be heard. If institutions could take the lead in valuing preprints during evaluations, I think we’d see a real boost in innovation across the board.
Concerns about the quality of preprints as they’re not peer-reviewed
Honestly, I don’t think we need to worry too much.
Think about Wikipedia. When it first came out, people said, “It’ll never be reliable. Anyone can edit it!” But over time, it became a go-to reference. Preprints feel similar. When your name is on a paper, you’re going to take it seriously. No one wants to be publicly wrong or discredited.
Sure, if institutions start counting preprints for evaluations, some might flood the system just to pad their CVs, but that doesn’t hold up for long. Research assessment is shifting from quantity to quality. And if someone fakes data or plagiarizes, it’s out there permanently. Most people won’t risk their reputation for that.
What really matters in science is fresh ideas. And those ideas are often rough in the beginning. If we’re too quick to judge, we might miss something that’s actually groundbreaking. It’s better to give people space to share and let the wider community weigh in over time.
Also, peer-reviewed papers aren’t automatically better. Readers need to judge for themselves, no matter how many reviewers looked at it. We should help readers build this skill, just like they learn to sort fact from fiction online.
Even if preprints became the norm, people would still care who wrote them. Reputation, expertise, and track record still matter. The goal isn’t to ban ideas, but to help people figure out which ones are worth paying attention to.
Suggestions for those who aren’t confident in making those judgments yet
Everyone learns through experience. After getting misled a couple of times, you start to get better at spotting red flags.
But science can also build a credibility system. If someone gets caught fabricating or spreading false information, their future preprints could carry a low credibility rating. And if it happens repeatedly, it gets recorded. That way, people can see who’s reliable and who’s not.
It’s like shopping online in the early days. People were unsure at first, but once there were ratings and return policies, trust grew. If preprints can’t be withdrawn, no one’s going to risk posting false claims lightly. A few bad examples might appear early on, but they’ll serve as warnings. After that, most people will be more cautious.
On the role of preprints in the future of academic publishing
I think preprints are the future. They protect originality and accelerate scientific progress.
Whichever country starts recognizing preprints in evaluations first could see its science advance faster than others.
In the long run, I believe preprints will reshape academic publishing. They’ll challenge the traditional peer-review-before-publication model and start to take up more space that journals currently occupy. Personally, I’m much more optimistic about preprint platforms than traditional journals.
Share Your Story in Researcher Voices
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.
