What Does "Preprinting" Research Mean? | Psychology Today

What is a preprint server?

This morning, I sent out news about an essay by a team of researchers called "Early-Emerging and Highly-Heritable Sensitivity to Human Communication in Dogs" that appeared online at the website for bioRxiv. I learned about it in a piece called "These adorable puppies may help explain why dogs understand our body language," published by David Grimm for Science. Both essays are available online. In Grimm's review, he summarizes the results of this interesting study and writes, "The team reports [their results] today on the preprint server bioRxiv."

A number of people wrote to me (who also read Psychology Today) and asked what I thought about the research. Some also wanted to know what a "preprint server" is all about. In a nutshell, bioRxiv is a preprint server for biology, and on the top of "Early-Emerging and Highly-Heritable Sensitivity to Human Communication in Dog," the publishers of this service offer a disclaimer: "A reminder: these are preliminary reports that have not been peer-reviewed. They should not be regarded as conclusive, guide clinical practice/health-related behavior, or be reported in news media as established information."

While they're referring to essays about the COVID-19 pandemic, the same holds true for everything else they post—the papers have not undergone standard peer-review. Grimm notes this in his piece. This does not mean that the research about which he wrote, or for that matter other essays that bioRxiv posts, won't pass muster when peer-reviewed, but the fact is they haven't been previously subjected to this process.

I also was astounded to learn how popular bioRxiv has come to be. In their first year (2013), they hosted 824 essays. In 2017, 10,722 papers were received, and in 2019, more than 31,000 manuscripts were submitted to them.

A few people who contacted me were concerned that the essay on which Grimm had written hadn't been peer-reviewed, and I wrote back that this does not mean it wouldn't be accepted in a refereed professional journal. However, their concerns made me think about two things: namely, what the word "preprint" used to mean in academic circles, and why someone would post their research on bioRxiv and then go ahead and try to publish it in a peer-reviewed journal. It seems that many don't.

Having served on a good number of promotion and tenure committees at departmental and university levels, in the past, "preprint" referred to a paper that had been accepted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal, and the authors were circulating before it appeared, usually because of long publication delays. When a paper was in preparation, academics referred to it as "in prep" rather than as "in press."

Some papers I've read on bioRxiv apparently didn't get formally published, or at least I couldn't find them on the web. This doesn't mean they're of low quality, but I suppose it well could. It also could mean that the researchers decided not to submit a paper later on, perhaps because of comments they received on their preprint or because they already got the word out about what they did and could continue on the same project or move on to other things.

Given the high rejection rates of many, but surely not all, professional journals, along with long publication delays, it's easy to understand why some researchers would want to let others know about what they did and what they discovered sooner rather than later. In what seems to be the distant past, this was done by sending a manuscript around to a few select people to give them a preview of a research project. However, now, with the ease of posting material on the web, it's all there for the world to see, even if it's not final and even if it hasn't been carefully scrutinized.

• Understanding Attention
• Take our ADHD Test
• Find a therapist to help with ADHD

Why should readers, perhaps especially non-academics, be aware of the meaning of "preprinting"?

"Preprint papers posted on servers such as arXiv and bioRxiv are designed to get research results out for discussion before they are formally peer-reviewed and published in journals. But for some scientists, the term is now a misnomer—their preprint papers will never be submitted for formal publication." — Nature

"...high-profile discredited studies have led to concerns that speed has been prioritized over the quality and credibility of evidence."

I think it's important for readers who are not members of the academy to know what "preprint" means. Singling bioRxiv out doesn't mean that they're doing a disservice, but rather—and they're very upfront about it—they're just a messenger for pre-refereed papers. And while I agree that it's not always a good idea "to kill the messenger," I didn't realize what "preprint" had evolved to mean until a few years ago when I later looked for formal publications of the preprints I had previously read and couldn't find them. Perhaps this isn't all that surprising given the huge number of manuscripts they receive. I have no idea how many they get in the research areas in which I'm most interested.

Three people who wrote to me—one a dog researcher—also had questions about the methods used and data reported that likely would have been raised by formal reviews. I suggested they write to the researchers because I thought they were good questions about which the authors should be aware. And perhaps someone who reads their preprint also would raise similar or other questions.

Because it's so easy to publicize just about anything nowadays, readers need to be careful about what they accept as facts. As I mentioned above, bioRxiv clearly states what they do, and readers need to pay close attention to the service they perform.

For me, a nagging question, especially perhaps in areas with which I'm unfamiliar, is how credible is the research if a preprint isn't submitted and accepted for formal review? I have no idea how many of the 41,000+ papers that were submitted in 2017 and 2019 were then submitted and/or subsequently published in refereed journals, but it's difficult to imagine that even a small fraction were, even with "pay-as-you-go" outlets.

If posting there (or elsewhere) leads to useful questions about a given research project, they've performed a helpful service. However, if people don't pay close attention to their (or others') stated mission, it could lead to accepting unsubstantiated facts as bona fide data, and this could lead to a long, winding road of escalating misinformation. Some people often ask me what they call "stupid questions," and those are the ones that make me (and other researchers) shudder because they're not at all "stupid." They simply want to know more and are bombarded with information they can't accurately assess.

The bottom line is simple: Look at the source, and decide about the quality of the research. And if you're not able to do this on your own, ask people who are. I treasure hearing from people who want to know more about the research about which they're reading in fields with which I'm familiar. If I can't help them along, I send them to people who can. And I often ask them to get back to me with what they learn—a win-win for all. It's essential that non-researchers, researchers, citizen scientists, and those who reside somewhere in the mix get it right.