Preprints in Scholarly and Science Communication

Exploring preprint adoption and impact in scientific communities and among science journalists. 

The use of preprints in scholarly publishing has grown rapidly, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic, yet they still represent a small fraction of the literature. While existing data sources track broad trends, more localized and community-specific insights are essential to understanding preprint adoption and developing best practices.

Our research examines how preprints are used, evaluated, and communicated across both scholarly and public spheres, and how they intervene in established systems of trust, gatekeeping, and expertise in science. This includes studies of how journalists cover preprints, how media attention to them has evolved over time, and how norms around reporting unreviewed research have shifted—especially during public health crises. We also explore how preprints are interpreted by the public, highlighting the challenges audiences face in making sense of research that has not undergone peer review.

Building on this work, we investigate how preprints are certified and made credible, examining the practices, infrastructures, and values that shape their perceived trustworthiness. This includes how preprints are moderated, labeled, and linked to journal publications, as well as how they are positioned within broader research infrastructures. We also examine the quality and consistency of preprint metadata, and how gaps in metadata integrity can affect transparency, discoverability, and public trust.

By combining qualitative and quantitative methods, our research traces how preprints move through different systems of validation, visibility, and interpretation—from submission and moderation to media coverage and public understanding—and how these processes shape what counts as credible, who gets to participate in knowledge production, and how research reaches different publics. 

Our work contributes to a better understanding of how preprints function in practice and offers evidence to guide more thoughtful, responsible approaches to their use.

Collaborators

Juan Pablo Alperin, Alice Fleerackers, Natascha Chtena, Mario Malicki.

Related Publications