This Peer Review Week, we’re covering trust in peer review from many different angles. In the past year, and in particular during the COVID-19 pandemic, however, preprints have become an increasingly popular and talked about stage of the publishing process. By definition, preprints are not yet peer reviewed; a preprint is a draft research paper shared publicly before it has undergone peer review and publication at an academic journal.

In 2019, Wiley launched Under Review, a new open research and preprinting service from Authorea where authors can share their manuscript as a preprint while it is under review at a number of Wiley’s journals, before it is accepted or published.

We asked Alberto Pepe, co-founder of Authorea, Senior Director of Product Strategy and Innovation at Atypon, and former researcher in astrophysics and computer science, to talk us through how preprints and Under Review factor into the wider conversation around trust.

Q: In the past several months during the COVID-19 pandemic, trust in research and peer review has been a big discussion, particularly due to the speed with which COVID-19-related research is getting published. Additionally, we’ve seen a huge interest in preprints, research that hasn’t yet been peer reviewed. Can you comment on how preprint servers have been impacted by COVID-19? What has your experience been at Authorea during this time?

A: The impact that the COVID-19 pandemic had on the volume, reach, and popularity of preprints is hard to exaggerate. To take a clear example, during the first few months of the pandemic, there were just as many preprints posted as published articles on the subject of COVID-19 (Source). Such massive penetration of preprints was unheard of before the pandemic outside the domains of physics and computer science – fields that have a deep historical preprinting culture. What’s even more striking is that this interest in preprints has not been limited to researchers. The media, journalists, and the public alike have shown interest in these early stage research outputs.

Authorea has seen a comparable uptake in preprints since the pandemic. At the end of November, we launched Under Review – an initiative that allows authors submitting to selected Wiley titles to opt in to making a preprint in one click. Our initial opt-in rate was about 30%. The latest recorded opt-in rate, recorded at the end of July is 44% – such increase is most likely attributable to the pandemic. Moreover, of the ~5,000 preprints that were posted to date using Under Review since November, over 1,000 of them are about COVID-19: https://authorea.com/covid.

Q: How can we ensure that the media and the public understand how preprints fit in the research ecosystem, and the difference between early research outputs and validated research? What do you think readers and researchers should keep in mind while reading preprints?

A: For the general public, and even reporters, it is easy to mistake a preprint for a published article. A preprint is, after all, a step in the publication lifecycle – most preprints are eventually published in a scholarly journal. There are a number of ways in which preprints can be recognized. First, all preprint servers, Authorea included, show clear disclaimers on all preprints indicating that the article is not peer reviewed, that data and results may be preliminary, and in the case of medical preprints, that preprints should not be relied on to guide medical decisions. Second, some preprint servers offer information about screening and peer review on the preprint itself. This could include a peer review timeline (which Authorea Under Review provides), a badge, as well as a peer review report. This information allows the public, reporters, and journalists to make more informed decisions about the preprints they are looking at. 

Q: In an age where preprints are getting read and circulated widely, both by researchers and the public, is there still a role for peer review as we know it?

A: Absolutely. It is very likely that peer review, as we know it, will change. That’s a good thing. It might transform into something different. For example, it may move upstream and be performed directly on preprints. Or it may be complemented by machine-based algorithms for screening and systematic statistical analyses. These are just examples of possibilities. Publishers will adapt and hopefully innovate to embrace these (much needed) changes. What is important is that a rigorous editorial process is needed to allow science to foster, advance, and self-correct. If anything, for publishers, preprints offer a clear opportunity to highlight the critical importance of their editorial work. 

Q: You mentioned that Under Review allows readers to see a transparent peer review timeline for each preprint. How does this functionality serve to build trust in peer review and the research process?

A: The peer review timeline we offer with Under Review is just a first step. We also already offer an automatically created link to the Version of Record when a preprint is published (whether the target journal is a Wiley title or not). We’re also starting to experiment with “badges” – that allow both human- and machine-generated reports that check for compliance with data policies, statistical methods, and more. In some other more recent experiments, we are also starting to publish the peer review reports of publications alongside the preprint. We believe that all these pieces of information are the first step towards building trust, clarity, and transparency for preprints.

Q: The process of publishing a preprint, submission, peer review, and publication has been accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic. Do you think that acceleration has ultimately been positive or negative for the research community? Does it represent a permanent shift for the research landscape? What will be the “new normal”?

A: I personally believe that the acceleration of the overall time and process of publication is ultimately a good thing for scientific research. And I believe that faster publication times are here to stay, even if they have really put the current editorial workflows under a lot of stress. In order to maintain faster turnaround and publication times, it will be important for publishers to drastically modernize their submission and production workflows to enable a more streamlined (and pleasant!) lifecycle, shortening the time from manuscript preparation to publication.