Preprints Part 2: Considerations for Authors and Editors

Jacqueline K. Owens, PhD, RN, CNE

Writer’s Camp Counselor

My previous article, Preprints Part I: An Era of Public Peer Review,¹ described advantages and emerging concerns related to preprints, as well as research findings to inform this growing option for authors of scientific papers. In this article, I discuss considerations for two stakeholders of the preprint process, authors and editors. As a brief review, a preprint is a draft manuscript that authors can self-post in a preprint repository on a public server, prior to peer review or publication in a refereed journal. Preprints are often posted as a step in the revision process. Authors can receive feedback from anyone, experts in their discipline and lay readers, which can inform the final version of the manuscript submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal.^2-3 In healthcare and other biological sciences, common examples of preprint servers are medRxiv and bioRxiv.⁴ As an aside, in case you are wondering, “Rxiv” is pronounced “R-kive” (like “archive”). The “x” represents the Greek letter Chi, which inserts the hard “k” in the pronunciation.

Considerations for Authors

The preprint process offers early feedback to inform authors about how their material is best conceptualized, organized, and presented and allows for revisions early in the writing process. This offers authors a measure of control over the timing of dissemination of their findings and they can use this evidence of their productivity in job applications and grant proposals.⁴ There are risks that authors need to consider. First, disseminating their methods and findings freely and publicly before formal publication may deter the eventual acceptance of the manuscript in a refereed journal. The loss of confidentiality can impact anonymous peer review. Finally, unethical conduct from someone who studies a similar topic area is a possibility. In addition, authors are responsible for updating the preprint with the appropriate information if the manuscript is published in a refereed journal.^{2, 5}

Considerations for Editors

Journal Guidelines

Preprints can attract authors who value the process of seeking public feedback for their work. It is possible that editors will receive higher quality initial submissions as a result of this additional layer of critique. The value of the final publication to readers will likely depend on the comfort level of all stakeholders with early dissemination. Inherent to the preprint process is previous dissemination of the content before formal publication in a vetted journal. It can be hard to determine the true motivation of the author: receiving helpful feedback in the early stages of writing versus quick dissemination in any format. Important to the consideration of preprints is clear journal policy.^5-6 For example, guidelines for the journal Nursing Research require that authors acknowledge the preprint and provide the associated DOI, any revised versions of the paper post peer review cannot be deposited, the preprint version cannot have been indexed in MEDLINE or PubMed, and following formal publication it is the author’s responsibility to update the archived preprint with the final DOI and a link to the final published version.⁵ 

New Editor Role

One new role for editors has emerged related to preprints. In 2017, Proceedings Research Society B (of THE ROYAL SOCIETY PUBLISHING) developed the role of Preprint Editor.⁷ The goals were 1) to provide leadership in an effort to recruit submissions from preprint servers to increase disciplinary breadth, and especially papers beyond the biology content that the journal typically received, and 2) to increase participation and inclusion of authors and readers from a wider range of countries. The journal advisory board appointed an associate editor to this new role and she selected 20 early career scientists to form a Preprint Editorial Team. The initial focus was on the server bioRxiv, which had nearly 40,000 preprints in 5 years with a steady increase. The team surveyed thousands of papers across biology each month, looking for topics they did not often see in the journal. The initial decision to pursue contact with preprint author(s) was made by the team; however, the final decision and outreach to the author(s) was the responsibility of the Preprint Editor, who emailed authors to solicit a formal submission to the journal.

Evaluation of this program demonstrated that the majority of papers solicited were already under review in a refereed journal. They did not find a statistically significant difference in topical representation from solicited preprints versus their usual method, but did demonstrate clinical significance. They noted a broader range of topics with visual comparison. They did not find a statistically or clinically significant difference toward their outcome of soliciting content from authors who represented geographical diversity. However, they were pleased with the initial outcomes in general and plan to retain the Preprint Editor role and solicitation process.

Strategies to Utilize Preprints

Teaching Peer Review

Preprint servers can also be considered from a pedagogical perspective.^8-9 Undergraduate and graduate students may publish drafts of scholarly manuscripts and seek external feedback throughout the writing process. There is also the opportunity to teach learners how to peer review by requiring them to critique and offer feedback to preprints for either fellow learners or other authors who have posted preprints in their discipline. This entire process has the potential to increase feedback about preprints and to illustrate the need for transparency throughout the process. While some educators have published their strategies to utilize preprints as a classroom strategy, research about use of preprints in general is sparse.

Preprint Clubs

Another strategy emerging in academic settings is Preprint Clubs.^3,10 Members author and post preprint manuscripts, review preprints and offer constructive feedback using a discussion-based approach, or analyze the eventual disposition of reviewed preprints (i.e., acceptance in a refereed journal). Although some Preprint Club members had previous experience with peer review, most still stated that participating in the club increased their confidence in their ability to assess scientific research manuscripts. The club used a scoring system that was helpful and they are considering revising it to include more detail. Another advantage was the opportunity to include members across disciplines or from other institutions.

Checklists, such as PRECHECK, are emerging to assist readers with preprint review.¹¹ Avassar-Whiting et al.³ have created a list of helpful strategies for preprint authors, reviewers, and editors considering formal publication of scholarly work revised from earlier preprints, reprinted here using a Creative Commons license. 

Conclusion

In sum, concerns about preprints typically relate to the potential lack of transparency about the progression from preprint to published article, incomplete understanding of the scientific process by persons offering comments, and early dissemination and possible implementation of findings not yet vetted by experts from the scientific community. As the use of preprints continues to develop, there are opportunities to improve both writing and peer review skills and to educate all reviewers about the process and expectations for preprints to contribute to dissemination of scientific findings. Continued research is needed about both the process and outcomes of preprints in publishing.

References

1. Owens J. Preprints part 1: An era of public review. The Writer’s Camp Journal. 2025;1(3):10-10. doi:10.5281/ZENODO.17476019
2. Misiak M, Kurpas D. Supporting open science: Advances in Clinical and Experimental Medicine and preprints Adv Clin Exp Med. 2024;33(10):1045–1068. doi:10.17219/acem/193956
3. Avissar-Whiting M, Belliard F, Bertozzi SM, Brand A, Brown K, Cle´ment-Stoneham G, et al. Recommendations for accelerating open preprint peer review to improve the culture of science. PLoS Biol 2024; 22(2): e3002502. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.3002502
4. Hindle S, Sever R. Preprints as tools to advance careers. Nature Reviews Cancer. 2024;24(9):591-592. doi:10.1038/s41568-024-00718-2
5. Pickler RH. Publishing preprints. Nursing Research. 2019;68(5):337-338. doi:10.1097/nnr.0000000000000378
6. Ide K, Koshiba H, Hawke P, Fujita M. Guidelines are urgently needed for the use of preprints as a source of information. Journal of Epidemiology. 2021;31(1):97-99. doi:10.2188/jea.je20200506
7. Neiman M, Bagley RK, Paczesniak D, Singh-Shepherd S. Development, implementation and impact of a new preprint solicitation process at proceedings b. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences. 2021;288(1954):20211248. doi:10.1098/rspb.2021.1248
8. Benjamin J, Wanjalla CN, Gaddy JA, Kirabo A, Williams EM, Hinton A. Reimagining bioRxiv and preprint servers as platforms for academic learning. Journal of Cellular Physiology. 2024;239(7). doi:10.1002/jcp.31234
9. Sever R. Preprint review should form part of Phd programmes and Postdoc training. Nature News. January 17, 2023. Accessed May 15, 2025. https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-023-00085-2.
10. Richter FC, Gea‐Mallorquí E, Mortha A, Ruffin N, Vabret N. The preprint club. EMBO reports. 2023;24(6). doi:10.15252/embr.202357258
11. Turoman N, Heyard R, Schwab S, Furrer E, Vergauwe E, Held L. Using an expert survey and user feedback to construct PRECHECK: A checklist to evaluate preprints on covid-19 and beyond. Published online August 30, 2022. doi:10.31222/osf.io/nb928
12. Saxe R, Thomas A. Tools for Robust Research–Week 6. 2022. [cited 2023 May 31]. Available from: https://matiasandina.github.io/tools-for-robust-research/content/week-06.html.
13. Ross-Hellauer T, Reichmann S, Cole NL, Fessl A, Klebel T, Pontika N. Dynamics of cumulative advantage and threats to equity in open science: a scoping review. R Soc Open Sci. 2022; 9:211032. https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.211032 PMID: 35116143
14. eLife’s New Model: Funders support use of reviewed preprints in research assessment. In: eLife [Internet].eLife Sciences Publications Limited. 2022 Dec 8 [cited 2025 May 16]. Available from: https://elifesciences.org/inside-elife/ebadb0f1/elife-s-new-model-funders-support-use-of-reviewed-preprints-in-research-assessment.      

Author: Jacqueline Owens

Edited and Reviewed by: Jenny Chicca and Leslie H. Nicoll

Copyright © 2025 Writer’s Camp and Jacqueline Owens. CC-BY-ND 4.0

Citation: Owens, J. Preprints part 2: Considerations for authors and editors. The Writer’s Camp Journal, 1(3):11. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.17593692