- \n
- Recent studies suggest that, even when provided with a definition, the general public remains unclear on what a preprint is.<\/li>\n
- The public\u2019s perception of research credibility depends more on the broader framing of research findings than on disclosure of preprint status.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
\n![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/AdobeStock_1092130654.jpeg?resize=1024%2C683&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\nDecades after their introduction, preprints have become a well-established<\/a> concept within the scientific community. Recent years have seen some publishers move entirely to a reviewed preprint model<\/a> and organisations such as the ICMJE release updated guidance<\/a> for authors and editors alike. But what about the public? While those in medical publishing have been debating how best to maintain the speed of preprints while introducing further checks and balances, findings reported in preprints are increasingly being picked up by general news outlets. In an article<\/a> for Science<\/em><\/a>, <\/em>Jeffrey Brainard delved into the latest research on public understanding of preprints to examine the risks and benefits of this trend.<\/p>\n
Preprint \u2018disclaimers\u2019 are not enough<\/strong><\/p>\n
As highlighted by Brainard, two recent studies suggest that \u2013 even when preprints are clearly labelled as such \u2013 public understanding of preprint status, and its potential implications for reported research, remains low.<\/p>\n
In one study<\/a>, researchers gave over 1,700 US adults adapted versions of real news articles describing preprint-reported study results. After reading the articles, just 30% of participants were able to define \u2018preprint\u2019 in a way that showed some understanding of the term. When students were excluded, this proportion almost halved.<\/p>\n
\n
Only 17% of the general public understand what a preprint is.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
Some versions of the news articles included a definition of the term preprint and an explanation that the findings had not been peer reviewed. Surprisingly, this had little effect on the understanding of the general public, although it did improve students’ ability to define preprints.<\/p>\n
Context matters<\/strong><\/p>\n
Another study<\/a> found that rather than a simple disclosure of preprint status, the wider framing of the article had the most impact on public perception of research credibility. Stronger, more definitive language makes findings appear more trustworthy, while \u2018hedging\u2019 language reduces trust.<\/p>\n
How to improve public understanding of preprints?<\/strong><\/p>\n
These findings suggest that disclosure of preprint status alone may not be enough to build public understanding. Dr Alice Fleerackers, co-author of both studies, argues that the scientific community must also do more to help the public understand how peer review works. Striking the right balance<\/a> between speed and credibility of reporting seems likely to remain a key challenge for researchers and communicators.<\/p>\n
\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2014\u2013<\/p>\n
![\"\"](\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/thepublicationplan.com\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/05\/Aspirationa_Ramya-Nadig_1.png?resize=1024%2C125&ssl=1\")
<\/p>\n