Skip to main content
Intended for healthcare professionals

Abstract

Academic scholarly communication is the predominant business of researchers, scientists, and scholars. It is the core element of promoting scientific thought, investigation, and building up solid knowledge. The development of preprint platform web interfaces, server repositories of electronic scholarly papers submitted by their authors and openly available to the scientific community proposed a new form of academic communication. The distribution of a preprint of a scientific manuscript allows the authors to claim the priority of discovery, in a manner similar to the conference proceedings output, but also creates an anteriority that prevents protection by a patent application. Herein, we review the scope and the role of preprint papers platforms in academia, we explore individual cases, arXiv, SSRN, OSF Preprints, HAL, bioRxiv, EconStor, RePEc, PhilArchive, Research Square, viXra, Cryptology ePrint Archive, Preprints.org, ChinaXiv, medRxiv, JMIR Preprints, Authorea, ChemRxiv, engrXiv, e-LiS, SciELO, PsyArXiv, F1000 Research, and Zenodo, and discuss their significance in promoting scientific discovery, the potential risks of scientific integrity, as well as the policies of data distribution and intellectual property rights, the plus and minus, for the stakeholders, authors, institutions, states, scientific journals, scientific community, and the public. In this review we explore the scope and policies of the existing preprint papers platforms in different academic research fields.

Get full access to this article

View all access and purchase options for this article.

References

Bahlai C, Bartlett L, Burgio K, et al. (2019) Open science isn’t always open to all scientists. American Scientist 107(2): 78–82.
Brainard J (2021) Open access takes flight. Science 371(6524): 16–20.
Brumfiel G (2009) What’s arXiv spelled backwards? A new place to publish. Available at: http://blogs.nature.com/news/2009/07/whats_arxiv_spelled_backwards.html (accessed 18 September 2021).
Buranyi S (2017) Is the staggeringly profitable business of scientific publishing bad for science? The Guardian, 27 June.
Cobb M (2017) The prehistory of biology preprints: A forgotten experiment from the 1960s. PLoS Biology 15(11): e2003995.
Dittmaier S, Mariotti C, Passarino G, et al. (2012) Handbook of LHC Higgs cross sections: 2. Differential distributions. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1201.3084.
Fecher B, Friesike S (2014) Open science: One term, five schools of thought. In: Bartling S, Friesike S (eds) Opening Science. Cham; Heidelberg; New York, NY; Dordrecht; London: Springer, pp.17–47.
Foster C, Wager E, Marchington J, et al.; Gpcap Working Group (2019) Good practice for conference abstracts and presentations: GPCAP. Research Integrity and Peer Review 4(1): 11.
Fox MP, Lash TL (2017) On the need for quantitative bias analysis in the peer-review process. American Journal of Epidemiology 185(10): 865–868.
Fraser N, Brierley L, Dey G, et al. (2020a) Preprinting the COVID-19 pandemic. bioRxiv.
Fraser N, Momeni F, Mayr P, et al. (2020b) The relationship between bioRxiv preprints, citations and altmetrics. Quantitative Science Studies 1(2): 618–638.
Fu DY, Hughey JJ (2019) Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the peer-reviewed article. eLife 8: e52646.
Garfield E (1980) Has scientific communication changed in 300 years. Current Contents 8: 5–11.
Gianola S, Jesus TS, Bargeri S, et al. (2020) Characteristics of academic publications, preprints, and registered clinical trials on the COVID-19 pandemic. PLoS One 15(10): e0240123.
Ginsparg P (2016) Preprint Déjà Vu. The EMBO Journal 35(24): 2620–2625.
Harris A (2020) Transcript | viral validation: How the new journal RAPID REVIEWS: COVID-19 accelerates peer review and publishing. Rapid Reviews COVID-19. Available at: https://rapidreviewscovid19.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/3ok5dy7m (accessed 18 September 2021).
Hicks D, Wouters P, Waltman L, et al. (2015) Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics. Nature 520(7548): 429–431.
Hill R, Stein C (2019) Scooped! Estimating rewards for priority in science. Working Paper, Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
Huisman J, Smits J (2017) Duration and quality of the peer review process: The author’s perspective. Scientometrics 113(1): 633–650.
Ingelfinger FJ (1969) Definition of sole contribution. New England Journal of Medicine 281(12): 676–677.
Johansson MA, Reich NG, Meyers LA, et al. (2018) Preprints: An underutilized mechanism to accelerate outbreak science. PLoS Medicine 15(4): e1002549.
Johansson MA, Saderi D (2020) Open peer-review platform for COVID-19 preprints. Nature 579(7797): 29.
Kelk D, Devine D (2012) A scienceographic comparison of physics papers from the arXiv and viXra archives. arXiv Preprint arXiv:1211.1036.
Kirkham JJ, Penfold NC, Murphy F, et al. (2020) Systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting. BMJ Open 10: e041849.
Klebel T, Reichmann S, Polka J, et al. (2020) Peer review and preprint policies are unclear at most major journals. PLoS One 15(10): e0239518.
Kodvanj I, Homolak J, Virag D, et al. (2020) Publishing of COVID-19 preprints in peer-reviewed journals, preprinting trends, public discussion and quality issues. bioRxiv.
Kwon D (2020) How swamped preprint servers are blocking bad coronavirus research. Nature 581(7807): 130–131.
Lane S (2013) Why the data on all drug trials must be released. The Guardian, September 17.
Li X, Thelwall M, Kousha K (2015) The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication. Aslib Journal of Information Management 67(6): 614–635.
Lin J, Yu Y, Zhou Y, et al. (2020) How many preprints have actually been printed and why: A case study of computer science preprints on arXiv. Scientometrics 124(1): 555–574.
Luce RE (2001) E-prints intersect the digital library: Inside the Los Alamos arXiv. Issues in Science and Technology Librarianship 29. Available at: http://istl.org/01-winter/article3.html (accessed 18 September 2021).
Malicki M, Jeroncic A, Ter Riet G, et al. (2020) Preprint servers’ policies, submission requirements, and transparency in reporting and research integrity recommendations. The Journal of the American Medical Association 324(18): 1901–1903.
Mallapaty S (2020) Popular preprint servers face closure because of money troubles. Nature 578: 349.
Mehra MR, Desai SS, Kuy S, et al. (2020) Retraction: Cardiovascular disease, drug therapy, and mortality in Covid-19. N Engl J Med. DOI: 10.1056/NEJMoa2007621. New England Journal of Medicine 382(26): 2582–2582.
Merali Z (2016) ArXiv rejections lead to spat over screening process. Nature News, 29 January.
Morris S, Barnas E, LaFrenier D, et al. (2013) The Handbook of Journal Publishing. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering (2018) ChemRxiv: Publishing in the Age of Preprint Servers: Proceedings of a Symposium—in Brief. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press.
Noruzi A (2016) arXiv popularity from a citation analysis point of view. Webology 13(2): 1–7.
Nosek BA, Ebersole CR, DeHaven AC, et al. (2018) The preregistration revolution. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 115(11): 2600–2606.
Penfold NC, Polka JK (2020) Technical and social issues influencing the adoption of preprints in the life sciences. PLoS Genetics 16(4): e1008565.
Pradhan P, Pandey AK, Mishra A, et al. (2020) Uncanny similarity of unique inserts in the 2019-nCoV spike protein to HIV-1 gp120 and gag. bioRxiv 2020.01.30.927871.
Prelman G (2002) The entropy formula for the Ricci flow and its geometric applications. arXiv Preprint arXiv:math/0211159.
Puebla I, Polka J, Rieger O (2021) Preprints: Their evolving role in science communication. MetaArXiv.
Relman AS (1981) The ingelfinger rule. New England Journal of Medicine 305(14): 824–826.
Ross-Hellauer T (2017) What is open peer review? A systematic review. F1000Research 6: 588.
Schonfeld R, Rieger O (2020) Publishers invest in preprints. The Scholarly Kitchen. Available at: https://scholarlykitchen.sspnet.org/2020/05/27/publishers-invest-in-preprints/ (accessed 18 September 2021).
Serghiou S, Ioannidis JPA (2018) Altmetric scores, citations, and publication of studies posted as preprints. The Journal of the American Medical Association 319(4): 402–404.
Sever R, Roeder T, Hindle S, et al. (2019) bioRxiv: The preprint server for biology. bioRxiv.
Shuai X, Pepe A, Bollen J (2012) How the scientific community reacts to newly submitted preprints: Article downloads, Twitter mentions, and citations. PLoS One 7(11): e47523.
Stevens AJ (2016) Intellectual Property Valuation Manual for Academic Institutions. Committee on Development and Intellectual Property (CDIP). Geneva: WIPO—World Intellectual Property Organization.
Vale RD (2015) Accelerating scientific publication in biology. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 112(44): 13439–13446.
Widener A (2016) Beware of a bogus ChemRxiv. Chemical and Engineering News 94(46): 16.
Young NS, Ioannidis JP, Al-Ubaydli O (2008) Why current publication practices may distort science. PLoS Medicine 5(10): e201.

Biographies

Artemis Chaleplioglou is an academic teaching and research fellow at the Department of Archival, Library & Information Studies at the University of West Attica and she is head librarian at the library of Biomedical Research Foundation of the Academy of Athens. She holds a PhD (2018), an MSc (2006) and a BSc (2004) in Library and Information Science (LIS) from the Ionian University.
Alexandros Koulouris is Associate Professor in the Department of Archival, Library & Information Studies at the University of West Attica. He has been involved in several European and national R&D projects. He actively participates as a member of the Europeana Network Association. He holds a PhD and a BSc in Library and Information Science (LIS) from Ionian University and TEI of Athens respectively, and a BSc in International and European Studies from Panteion University.