![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/10\/Can-preprints-replace-journals.jpg?resize=724%2C483&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Expansion of the preprint<\/a> landscape has gathered pace<\/a> over recent years and in particular has seen rapid growth through the COVID-19 pandemic. During the 15th Conference of the European Association of Science Editors (EASE<\/a>), a debate was held on the topic: Preprints are going to replace journals<\/a><\/em>. Dr Haseeb Irfanullah<\/a> was appointed to oppose the motion.<\/p>\n \u201cDespite their limitations, I believe, preprints are here not to replace, but to complement peer-reviewed journals.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n Dr Irfanullah centred his argument against<\/a> preprint publications replacing traditional peer review journals on three main topics: publication rigour, access to content, and the characteristics of distraction<\/em>, disruption <\/em>and destruction<\/em>.<\/p>\n The first topic focused on expectations within the academic community that published research should meet several measures of rigour, including:<\/p>\n Publications in peer-reviewed journals meet these expected standards. Whilst some can also apply to preprints, there is a lack of peer review and validation. Instead, the author suggests that preprints should be described as \u2018research documents\u2019 or \u2018research communications\u2019, rather than formal publications.<\/p>\n On the topic of access to content, Dr Irfanullah acknowledged some advantages of preprint articles over journals, including rapid dissemination of research and free access to all. Yet journals have continued to make strides in improving access to peer-reviewed content, including the expansion of open access publication options and initiatives to improve access<\/a> in low- and middle-income countries. Furthermore, the introduction of transferable peer review and the creation of \u2018reviewer pools\u2019 to facilitate rapid publication of COVID-19 manuscripts have helped create an environment in which a rapid publication process is now expected.<\/p>\n In Dr Irfanullah\u2019s third supporting argument for his case against preprints, he highlighted several weaknesses of the preprint process:<\/p>\n Whilst preprints are becoming an established part of the publication landscape, it is perhaps more likely that they will remain a complementary format to peer-reviewed journals. Preprints may in fact be a force for good and, with appropriate caveats, could encourage more open and inclusive publishing practices<\/a>.<\/p>\n \u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013<\/p>\n\n
\n
\n