- \n
- ScholCommLab research shows that preprint servers are implementing more moderation measures as they attempt to improve preprint credibility.<\/li>\n
- The authors warn against compromising the very attributes that make preprints invaluable, namely \u201cspeed, accessibility, and low barriers to entry\u201d.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/AdobeStock_1051892804.jpeg?resize=1024%2C576&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nA recent article by the London School of Economics<\/a> examined the challenges associated with enhancing preprint credibility. Research by ScholCommLab<\/a> suggests that attempts to mitigate the dissemination of unchecked content through increased moderation may risk undermining the accessibility and speed that make preprints such a valuable method of sharing scientific information.<\/p>\n
Preprint credibility concerns<\/strong><\/p>\n
The authors remind us of how preprints emerged as an essential tool for the rapid dissemination of new information throughout the COVID-19 pandemic. While preprints were covered by the media at \u201can unprecedented rate\u201d during that time, journalists are now being more selective about their use due to concerns around lack of peer review. Arguably, one of the most significant barriers to broader preprint adoption is the concept that they are of lesser quality and not as reliable as peer-reviewed articles. Critics also question their potential for circulating misinformation, which ultimately damages public trust in science.<\/p>\n
\n
While the introduction of credibility measures may boost preprint adoption, the authors warn that this may come at a price.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Measures to improve preprint credibility <\/strong><\/p>\n
ScholCommLab\u2019s findings from interviews with preprint server managers strongly refute any claims that servers allow the spread of unchecked information. Rather, they have \u201ca strong sense of responsibility toward their communities, the scholarly record, and the public\u201d and feel under pressure to screen preprints for flawed content that could be misleading. As such, servers are introducing more and more measures to address concerns over credibility, including:<\/p>\n
- \n
- methods and data reporting badges<\/a><\/li>\n
- community endorsements<\/a><\/li>\n
- annotations<\/a><\/li>\n
- aligning more closely with peer-reviewed journals\u2019 editorial workflows.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The downsides of increased moderation<\/strong><\/p>\n
While the introduction of credibility measures may boost preprint adoption, the authors warn that this may come at a price, such as by:<\/p>\n
- \n
- restricting preprints to manuscripts or other formats congruent with journal peer review<\/li>\n
- slowing the availability of new research<\/li>\n
- reducing economic viability<\/li>\n
- undermining the core strengths associated with preprints (ie, \u201copenness, flexibility, and accessibility\u201d)<\/li>\n
- excluding \u201cdisadvantaged researchers\u201d, such as those at the beginning of their career and\/or at less established institutions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
The authors emphasise the importance of ensuring that preprints\u2019 benefits are not diminished, and ask the community to consider the implications of gatekeeping methods, particularly in relation to future global health crises.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013<\/p>\n
- community endorsements<\/a><\/li>\n
- methods and data reporting badges<\/a><\/li>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/03\/Aspirations_Cavan-Bennett-Ness_1.png?resize=1024%2C125&ssl=1\")
<\/a><\/p>\n