Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2019 Feb 21;17(2):e3000151.
doi: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151. eCollection 2019 Feb.

On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective

Sarvenaz Sarabipour  1 , Humberto J Debat  2 , Edward Emmott  3 , Steven J Burgess  4 , Benjamin Schwessinger  5 , Zach Hensel  6
Affiliations

On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective

Sarvenaz Sarabipour et al. PLoS Biol. .

Abstract

Peer-reviewed journal publication is the main means for academic researchers in the life sciences to create a permanent public record of their work. These publications are also the de facto currency for career progress, with a strong link between journal brand recognition and perceived value. The current peer-review process can lead to long delays between submission and publication, with cycles of rejection, revision, and resubmission causing redundant peer review. This situation creates unique challenges for early career researchers (ECRs), who rely heavily on timely publication of their work to gain recognition for their efforts. Today, ECRs face a changing academic landscape, including the increased interdisciplinarity of life sciences research, expansion of the researcher population, and consequent shifts in employer and funding demands. The publication of preprints, publicly available scientific manuscripts posted on dedicated preprint servers prior to journal-managed peer review, can play a key role in addressing these ECR challenges. Preprinting benefits include rapid dissemination of academic work, open access, establishing priority or concurrence, receiving feedback, and facilitating collaborations. Although there is a growing appreciation for and adoption of preprints, a minority of all articles in life sciences and medicine are preprinted. The current low rate of preprint submissions in life sciences and ECR concerns regarding preprinting need to be addressed. We provide a perspective from an interdisciplinary group of ECRs on the value of preprints and advocate their wide adoption to advance knowledge and facilitate career development.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript declare no financial competing interests. Non-financial competing interests: All authors are members of the eLife Ambassadors program to promote use of preprints. Benjamin Schwessinger is a member of eLife early career advisory group. Steven J. Burgess, Edward Emmott, Humberto J Debat and Zach Hensel are members of the ASAPBio Ambassador program to promote the use of preprints.

Figures

Fig 1
Fig 1. Preprints influence many facets of the scholarly landscape.
Preprints are an asset for ECRs. Preprints support a vibrant research culture and impact research decisions in multiple areas of the academic endeavor. The value of preprints for the biomedical workforce and biomedical research enterprise is currently underutilized. ECR, early career researcher.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Polka JK, Kiley R, Konforti B, Stern B, Vale RD. Publish peer reviews. Nature. 2018;560(7720):545–7. 10.1038/d41586-018-06032-w - DOI - PubMed
    1. Allison DB, Brown AW, George BJ, Kaiser KA. Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors. Nature. 2016;530(7588):27–9. 10.1038/530027a - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kovanis M, Porcher R, Ravaud P, Trinquart L. The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(11):14. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2006;99(4):178–82. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Balietti S. Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems. The Conversation. 2016. https://theconversation.com/heres-how-competition-makes-peer-review-more.... [cited 13 February 2019].

Publication types