Posting preprints has become increasingly popular. By sharing a version of their work prior to peer review and formal publication, researchers can get work in front of the global research community swiftly. The preprint is available for free, often as a non-typeset version.
The publication and formal review process can happen in parallel and does no longer slow down knowledge sharing. The idea behind preprints is that there is more transparency, also in the timeline of discoveries when competing teams are working on similar topics. The open-access model of preprint repositories also promotes transparency and ensures that research results, often paid for by tax-payer money, are available to the public. And finally, by decoupling the communication and review of scientific results, the wider community can judge and comment on original findings, rather than a handful of anonymous reviewers.
For all these reasons, preprints are a very welcome change to the traditional publishing system. However, while preprints can be a valuable resource for timely information, the fact that they are unreviewed does pose potential communication challenges.
How and when should we discuss preprints? What precautions and considerations should we take? Here we list a few practical tips.
When is it useful to communicate about preprints?
When there is an urgent societal need for data and evidence.
If a preprint presents crucial insights into a potential public health threat, such as a new infectious disease like COVID-19, reporting on it can help disseminate valuable information to the public and relevant authorities. This allows for quicker awareness and potential early response measures.
When the research landscape evolves faster than publication timelines.
In fast-paced research areas where developments occur rapidly, such as certain areas of technology (think of AI, for example) or interdisciplinary studies, reporting on preprints can keep your audience up to speed with the latest advancements. Especially when waiting for formal peer review might result in outdated information.
When there is an opportunity to stimulate further research.
When a preprint introduces novel concepts or methodologies, reporting on it can encourage collaboration among scientists. By sharing these early-stage findings, science communicators can contribute to fostering an environment of shared knowledge and collaborative exploration.
When is it better to steer clear?
When preprints contain direct and consequential health recommendations.
If a preprint makes health recommendations with immediate implications for public safety, it’s advisable to wait for formal peer review. Rushing to report on unverified health-related information may lead to misunderstandings or incorrect actions that could have serious consequences.
When preprints deal with controversial or sensitive topics.
Be very careful with preprints covering controversial or sensitive topics. Reporting on unverified information in these cases can contribute to the spread of misinformation and potentially harm individuals or communities. In such cases, responsible reporting may mean waiting for peer-reviewed validation.
When there are direct implications for policy decisions.
When preprints touch on issues that directly inform policy decisions, it’s prudent to wait for the rigor of peer review. Policy decisions based on unverified or incomplete research can have significant consequences, and relying on preprints in such cases may not provide the necessary level of certainty needed for informed decision-making.
As you can tell, these recommendations sometimes are in conflict with each other. In the case of COVID-19, for example, there was an urgent societal need for data and evidence, but at the same time, there were direct health and policy applications. Science press officers and journalists should therefore weigh the pros and cons in each particular case and context.
When you do decide to cover a preprint, it can be useful to take these 10 tips into account.
Verify the source \ Has the preprint been deposited on a reputable server or platform? Recognized servers, such as arXiv, bioRxiv, or medRxiv, often have preliminary screening processes in place.
Consider the field \ Different scientific fields may have varying norms regarding preprints. Understand the practices in the specific field you are covering to align with community expectations.
Be transparent \ Acknowledge that the research you are reporting hasn’t undergone formal peer review. Clearly communicate this to your audience to manage expectations regarding its reliability.
Contextualize findings \ Frame the preprint’s findings within the broader context of existing published research. Emphasize that the current report may undergo changes through the peer review process.
Be open about why \ Clearly articulate the purpose of discussing a particular preprint. Is it to inform the audience about emerging research, to foster dialogue, or to gauge public interest in a topic?
Emphasize uncertainty \ Be transparent about the uncertainties associated with preprints. Highlight the potential for revisions and the importance of awaiting peer-reviewed publication for definitive conclusions.
Engage with experts \ Seek insights from independent experts in the field before discussing a preprint. Their perspectives can provide valuable context and help you assess the research’s credibility.
Be extra cautious with health information \ We said it before, but we’ll say it again: be careful when dealing with preprints related to health and medical topics. Misinformation in this domain can have serious consequences.
Encourage critical thinking \ Empower your audience to approach preprints critically. Provide guidance on how to interpret preprint findings and emphasize the provisional nature of the information.
Update your audience \ If a preprint undergoes significant changes or is officially published, update your audience accordingly. In this way, you show you are committed to providing information that is accurate and current.
Comments