The preprint debate: What are the issues?

Abstract

The debate surrounding preprints is increasing. Preprint proponents claim that preprints are a way to shore up trust in academic publishing, that they provide an additional ‘quality’ screen prior to traditional peer review, that they can assist with the replication crisis plaguing science in part by making negative or contradictory results public, and that they speed up the publishing process because fundamental results can be presented early, serving as timely reports for the purposes of tenure or grant funding. Preprint skeptics and critics claim that preprints may represent a risk and a danger to quality-based academic publishing because they are documents that have not been carefully and thoroughly vetted prior to their release into the public domain. Thus, academics who cite invalid, poorly vetted, or false facts could cause harm, not unlike the unscholarly ‘predatory’ open access movement. Feedback on work from lesser-known groups, or on less glamorous topics, may be null or worse than from traditional peer review, annulling an initial key objective of preprints. Although there is no widespread empirical evidence or data yet regarding some of these issues, academics should be aware of the ideological, financial, and political tug-of-war taking place before deciding if they wish to publish their important findings as a preprint prior or simultaneous to submitting to a regular journal for peer review.

Full text

Contemporary
Issue
The
preprint
debate:
What
are
the
issues?
Jaime
A.
Teixeira
da
Silva
P.
O.
Box
7,
Miki-cho
Post
Office,
Ikenobe
3011-2,
Kagawa-ken
761-0799,
Japan
Introduction:
a
brief
overview
of
the
evolution
of
the
preprint
market
The
first
preprint
server,
arXiv,
launched
in
1991,
was
used
by
physicists
and
mathematicians.
It
was
designed
as
a
platform
to
promote
the
discussion
of
unpublished
results
among
academics,
and
also
served
to
plant
an
ideological
flag
of
one's
academic
ideas.
In
some
cases,
preprints
are
submitted
simultaneously
to
a
journal
for
traditional
peer
review,
while
in
other
cases,
preprints
may
represent
the
final
published
version
of
a
paper.
In
the
latter
case,
some
authors
do
not
pursue
the
publication
of
their
work
initially
presented
as
a
preprint
to
a
traditional
peer-reviewed
journal
because
that
process
can
take,
in
some
extreme
cases,
years
to
complete,
making
data
sets
'old'.
Nature
Proceedings,
a
5-year-old
preprint
experiment
aimed
at
the
field
of
biomedicine
that
terminated
abruptly
in
2012,
showed
that
academics
were
not
embracing
preprints,
possibly
because
they
could
not
envision
the
scholarly
merit
of
a
document
that
had
not
been
properly
vetted
by
specialists
through
peer
review.
The
underlying
concern
is
that
preprints
might
contain
factually
incorrect
information.
biorXiv
emerged
in
late
2013
as
a
preprint
server
to
serve
biology,
and
is
in
fact
the
fastest
growing
preprint
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
a
r
m
e
d
f
o
r
c
e
s
i
n
d
i
a
7
4
(
2
0
1
8
)
1
6
2
–
1
6
4
E-mail
address:
jaimetex@yahoo.com.
a
r
t
i
c
l
e
i
n
f
o
Article
history:
Received
11
July
2017
Accepted
8
August
2017
Available
online
5
October
2017
Keywords:
arXiv
ASAPbio
bioRxiv
DOI
Preprint
server
a
b
s
t
r
a
c
t
The
debate
surrounding
preprints
is
increasing.
Preprint
proponents
claim
that
preprints
are
a
way
to
shore
up
trust
in
academic
publishing,
that
they
provide
an
additional
'quality'
screen
prior
to
traditional
peer
review,
that
they
can
assist
with
the
replication
crisis
plaguing
science
in
part
by
making
negative
or
contradictory
results
public,
and
that
they
speed
up
the
publishing
process
because
fundamental
results
can
be
presented
early,
serving
as
timely
reports
for
the
purposes
of
tenure
or
grant
funding.
Preprint
skeptics
and
critics
claim
that
preprints
may
represent
a
risk
and
a
danger
to
quality-based
academic
publishing
because
they
are
documents
that
have
not
been
carefully
and
thoroughly
vetted
prior
to
their
release
into
the
public
domain.
Thus,
academics
who
cite
invalid,
poorly
vetted,
or
false
facts
could
cause
harm,
not
unlike
the
unscholarly
'predatory'
open
access
move-
ment.
Feedback
on
work
from
lesser-known
groups,
or
on
less
glamorous
topics,
may
be
null
or
worse
than
from
traditional
peer
review,
annulling
an
initial
key
objective
of
preprints.
Although
there
is
no
widespread
empirical
evidence
or
data
yet
regarding
some
of
these
issues,
academics
should
be
aware
of
the
ideological,
financial,
and
political
tug-of-war
taking
place
before
deciding
if
they
wish
to
publish
their
important
findings
as
a
preprint
prior
or
simultaneous
to
submitting
to
a
regular
journal
for
peer
review.
©
2017
Published
by
Elsevier
B.V.
on
behalf
of
Director
General,
Armed
Forces
Medical
Services.
Available
online
at
www.sciencedirect.com
ScienceDirect
journal
homepage:
www.elsevier.com/locate/mjafi
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.mjafi.2017.08.002
0377-1237/©
2017
Published
by
Elsevier
B.V.
on
behalf
of
Director
General,
Armed
Forces
Medical
Services.

server,
even
though
arXiv
has
the
largest
number
of
accumulated
preprints.
However,
funding
has
entered
the
preprint
equation,
distorting
the
original
academic
objectives
of
preprints.
For
example,
researchers
funded
by
the
Bill
and
Melinda
Gates
Foundation
can
use
an
exclusive
platform
to
present
their
findings
as
a
future
(late
2017)
preprint
server,
Gates
Open
Research.
This
is
similar
to
researchers
funded
by
the
Wellcome
Trust
who
have
used
an
exclusive
preprint
server,
Wellcome
Open
Research,
since
November
of
2016.
Both
these
preprint
servers
rely
on
the
f1000Research
technical
platform,
which
is
leased
for
a
fee.
Funding
by
independent
groups
and
philanthropic
organizations
is
in
a
boom.
Select
examples
include
the
Chan
Zuckerberg
Initiative
that
funds
biorXiv,
the
European
Research
Council
that
funds
ArXiv,
and
the
Laura
and
John
Arnold
Foundation
that
funds
the
10
topics-based
preprint
servers
hosted
by
the
Center
for
Open
Science.
This
injection
of
big
money
is
causing
a
bullish
preprint
market
to
sprout.
A
massive
push
toward
preprints,
spurred
by
ASAPbio
marketing,
has
caused
preprints
to
become
highly
politicized,
with
visible
tensions
in
the
public
domain.
1
Publishers
such
as
Elsevier
or
MDPI
have
their
own
preprint
servers,
launched
in
May
of
2017
and
2016,
respec-
tively,
while
SciELO,
a
primarily
South
American
open
access
cooperation,
is
expected
to
soon
launch
its
own
preprint
server.
Scholars
must
appreciate
the
ideological
background
of
an
emerging,
and
potentially
profitable,
preprint
market.
Academic
and
other
issues
in
the
preprint
debate
An
argument
for
the
use
of
preprints
is
that
it
allows
funders
to
observe
the
progress
of
a
project
in
real
time,
allowing
a
more
realistic
opportunity
to
apply
for,
and
obtain,
tenure,
funding
or
promotions.
Since
preprints
can
now
be
cited,
through
the
use
of
a
Digital
Object
Identifier
(DOI),
the
issue
of
responsible
citation
and
use
of
preprints
lies
in
the
hands
of
authors
and
editors
who
may
choose
to
use
and
publish
reference
to
work
that
has
not
been
thoroughly
vetted.
Emilie
Marcus,
the
CEO
of
Cell
Press
(Elsevier),
spurred
debate
when
she
claimed
that
preprints
should
not
be
cited,
thus
not
risking
‘‘pseudo-article
sneaking
into
credibility
through
a
back
door’’.
2
Her
line
of
view
argued
that
preprints
should
be
observed
exclusively
as
a
work
in
progress
made
open
to
the
public
for
open
feedback,
either
to
improve
the
paper
itself
or
the
methodologies
cited
therein,
but
not
to
be
mistaken
with
open
peer
review,
which
is
a
more
formal
and
accountable
process
meant
to
detect
errors
prior
to
becoming
a
final
citable
and
usable
scholarly
item.
The
risk
of
scooping
intellectual
ideas
such
as
methods
from
a
preprint
is
unlikely
because
a
preprint
offers
time-sensitive
evidence
of
an
intellectual
claim.
However,
could
preprints
be
used
for
intellectual
phishing,
that
is,
an
attempt
to
gather
intellectual
ideas
from
the
public
to
improve
a
paper?
Even
though
preprint
servers
such
as
biorXiv
label
preprints
as
'not
peer-reviewed',
the
fact
is
that
no
rigorous
academic
scrutiny
takes
place,
with
preprints
being
approved
for
release
into
the
public
domain
within
as
little
as
24
h
after
screening
by
an
advisory
board.
There
is
little
to
prevent
academics
from
citing
such
documents.
Academics
are
weary
of
the
false
academic
and
'predatory'
Open
Access
(OA)
publishing
industry,
3
in
which
work
is
published
that
has
not
been
peer
reviewed
or
screened
in
detail
for
quality.
The
argument
here
is
that
preprints
may
represent
a
form
of
predatory
OA
behavior,
despite
their
caveat
lector
(i.e.,
the
reader
should
be
aware
and/
or
cautious)
label.
Preprint
proponents
claim
that
preprints
allow
for
the
promotion
of
replications,
confirmatory,
contra-
dictory,
or
negative
findings,
which
generally
tend
to
be
marginalized
by
traditional
journals
and
thus
constitute
an
opportunity
to
present
a
wealth
of
'lost'
or
'hidden'
data
and
information
that
should
be
available
to
academics
and
the
public.
But
which
preprint
servers
are
valid
and
acceptable?
Is
there
a
risk
that
'predatory'
publishers
may
establish
their
own
pay-to-publish
preprint
servers?
Even
though
there
is
discussion
underway
about
the
creation
of
a
centralized
preprint
service,
4
owners
of
current
preprint
servers
for
the
biological
sciences
are
showing
little
evidence
of
consolidation.
Are
the
so-called
risks
of
preprints
valid?
To
counter
the
critics
of
preprints,
several
counter-arguments
can
be
made.
Since
preprints
carry
a
DOI,
intellectual
phishing
or
scooping
can
be
proved,
and
intellectual
pirates
who
violate
priority
claims
can
be
punished
accordingly.
Even
if
preprints
carry
several
versions
prior
to
becoming
a
final
published
version,
either
as
a
preprint
or
as
a
paper
in
a
scholarly
journal,
preprints
must
always
be
understood
as
an
incomplete
work
in
progress.
Thus,
responsible
citation
must
rely
on
responsible
interpretation
of
a
preprint's
content.
Inculcating
a
culture
of
responsible
use
and
citation
will
be
difficult
to
achieve
given
the
prominent
nature
of
'predatory'
publishing,
OA
and
traditional.
A
core
challenge
for
preprints
is
how
to
harmonize
the
existence,
and
use,
of
peer
reviewed
work
and
non-peer
reviewed
work.
In
that
sense,
preprints
can
serve
as
a
tool
for
post-publication
peer
review
to
refute
erroneous
literature.
In
a
surprisingly
opaque
move
in
April–May
of
2017,
biorXiv
expanded
its
range
of
papers
that
could
be
accepted
for
publication
as
a
preprint,
accepting
preprints
related
to
publishing
policy.
This
action
indicated
that
preprints
are
still
in
a
highly
fluid
state
of
evolution,
and
new
risks
evolved
as
a
result
of
this
action
by
biorXiv:
(a)
will
one
day
anything
be
published
as
a
preprint,
that
is,
how
does
one
standardize
an
'acceptable'
quality
threshold
and
filter
relevant
from
junk
or
pseudoscience?
(b)
Why
are
letters,
perspectives,
or
commen-
taries
about
academic
issues,
categories
that
are
acceptable
in
many
peer-reviewed
journals,
not
acceptable
by
preprint
servers
such
as
biorXiv?
(c)
How
do
preprint
servers
ensure
that
there
is
voluntary
public
feedback
on
preprints,
without
biasing
sensationalist
preprints
at
the
expense
of
less
glamor-
ous
ones?
(d)
How
can
academics
trust
the
owners
of
preprint
servers
when
decisions
are
made
in
their
best
self-serving
interests
and
possibly
not
in
the
best
interests
of
academia?
Conclusions
Preprints
are
not
just
a
hot
topic.
They
offer
an
alternative
academic
platform
to
present
data
that
might
not
be
easily
accepted
in
traditional
publishing
venues
since
they
may
show
contradictory
or
refutable
data.
5
They
may
also
serve
to
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
a
r
m
e
d
f
o
r
c
e
s
i
n
d
i
a
7
4
(
2
0
1
8
)
1
6
2
–
1
6
4
163

anchor
intellectual
claims
as
citable
items.
Several
core
assumptions,
however,
might
not
be
true:
not
all
academics
will
use
preprints
responsibly
and
not
all
preprint
servers
might
be
academically
valid.
Given
the
rising
level
of
'fake'
in
academics,
it
is
to
be
expected
that
an
element
of
fraud,
deception
and
unscholarly
behavior
may
also
begin
to
enter
the
preprint
landscape.
In
order
to
deal
with
this
potential
threat,
preprint
servers
must
have
clear
ethical
and
retraction
policies
in
place,
and
these
must
be
enforced.
Academics
must
also
be
aware
that
there
is
a
political
and
economic
struggle
in
the
emergent
preprint
market,
with
some
of
the
most
passionate
preprint
proponents
also
being
some
of
the
most
passionate
critics
of
status
quo
publishing,
that
is,
preprints
are
a
threat
to
the
multi-billion
dollar
publishing
oligopoly.
6
For
example,
there
are
no
costs
for
authors
to
post
a
preprint
on
biorXiv,
unlike
exorbitant
OA
article
processing
fees
charged
by
some
leading
OA
journals.
This
rush
to
publish
work
as
a
free
OA
document
with
a
citable
identifier,
the
DOI,
may
also
invite
a
wealth
of
bad,
weak,
or
poor
science.
To
reduce
this
risk,
given
the
centrality
of
preprints
in
the
open
science
movement,
preprints
should
also
have
open
data
policies,
that
is,
preprints
cannot
be
published
unless
the
data
sets
are
also
placed
in
the
public
domain.
Conflicts
of
interest
The
author
has
none
to
declare.
r
e
f
e
r
e
n
c
e
s
1.
Teixeira
da
Silva
JA.
The
preprint
wars.
AME
Med
J.
2017;2:74.
http://dx.doi.org/10.21037/amj.2017.05.23.
2.
Marcus
E.
Let's
Talk
About
Preprint
Servers.
2017.
http://
crosstalk.cell.com/blog/lets-talk-about-preprint-servers
03.06.16;
Last
Accessed:
July
26.
3.
Das
AK.
Publish
and
flourish:
take
the
road
less
travelled!.
Med
J
Armed
Forces
India.
2017;73:178–180.
4.
Polka
J.
New
Developments
and
Plans
for
the
Central
Service
RFA
and
Governing
Body.
2017.
http://asapbio.org/category/
central-service
10.05.17;
Last
Accessed:
July
26.
5.
Berg
JM,
Bhalla
N,
Bourne
PE,
et
al.
Preprints
for
the
life
sciences.
Science.
2016;352:899–901.
6.
Molteni
M.
Biology's
Roiling
Debate
Over
Publishing
Research
Early.
2017.
https://www.wired.com/story/biologys-roiling-
debate-over-publishing-preprint-research-early/
Last
Accessed:
26.07.17.
m
e
d
i
c
a
l
j
o
u
r
n
a
l
a
r
m
e
d
f
o
r
c
e
s
i
n
d
i
a
7
4
(
2
0
1
8
)
1
6
2
–
1
6
4164