Skip to main page content
Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
, 17 (2), e3000151

On the Value of Preprints: An Early Career Researcher Perspective


On the Value of Preprints: An Early Career Researcher Perspective

Sarvenaz Sarabipour et al. PLoS Biol.


Peer-reviewed journal publication is the main means for academic researchers in the life sciences to create a permanent public record of their work. These publications are also the de facto currency for career progress, with a strong link between journal brand recognition and perceived value. The current peer-review process can lead to long delays between submission and publication, with cycles of rejection, revision, and resubmission causing redundant peer review. This situation creates unique challenges for early career researchers (ECRs), who rely heavily on timely publication of their work to gain recognition for their efforts. Today, ECRs face a changing academic landscape, including the increased interdisciplinarity of life sciences research, expansion of the researcher population, and consequent shifts in employer and funding demands. The publication of preprints, publicly available scientific manuscripts posted on dedicated preprint servers prior to journal-managed peer review, can play a key role in addressing these ECR challenges. Preprinting benefits include rapid dissemination of academic work, open access, establishing priority or concurrence, receiving feedback, and facilitating collaborations. Although there is a growing appreciation for and adoption of preprints, a minority of all articles in life sciences and medicine are preprinted. The current low rate of preprint submissions in life sciences and ECR concerns regarding preprinting need to be addressed. We provide a perspective from an interdisciplinary group of ECRs on the value of preprints and advocate their wide adoption to advance knowledge and facilitate career development.

Conflict of interest statement

I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript declare no financial competing interests. Non-financial competing interests: All authors are members of the eLife Ambassadors program to promote use of preprints. Benjamin Schwessinger is a member of eLife early career advisory group. Steven J. Burgess, Edward Emmott, Humberto J Debat and Zach Hensel are members of the ASAPBio Ambassador program to promote the use of preprints.


Fig 1
Fig 1. Preprints influence many facets of the scholarly landscape.
Preprints are an asset for ECRs. Preprints support a vibrant research culture and impact research decisions in multiple areas of the academic endeavor. The value of preprints for the biomedical workforce and biomedical research enterprise is currently underutilized. ECR, early career researcher.

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by 4 articles


    1. Polka JK, Kiley R, Konforti B, Stern B, Vale RD. Publish peer reviews. Nature. 2018;560(7720):545–7. 10.1038/d41586-018-06032-w - DOI - PubMed
    1. Allison DB, Brown AW, George BJ, Kaiser KA. Reproducibility: A tragedy of errors. Nature. 2016;530(7588):27–9. 10.1038/530027a - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Kovanis M, Porcher R, Ravaud P, Trinquart L. The Global Burden of Journal Peer Review in the Biomedical Literature: Strong Imbalance in the Collective Enterprise. PLoS ONE. 2016;11(11):14. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Smith R. Peer review: a flawed process at the heart of science and journals. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine. 2006;99(4):178–82. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Balietti S. Science Is Suffering Because of Peer Review’s Big Problems. The Conversation. 2016. [cited 13 February 2019].

Publication types

Grant support

ZH is supported by Project LISBOA-01-0145-FEDER-007660 (Microbiologia Molecular, Estrutural e Celular) funded by FEDER funds through COMPETE2020 - Programa Operacional Competitividade e Internacionalização (POCI), by national funds through FCT - Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia. BS is supported by a Australian Research Council Future Fellowship FT180100024. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.