Leave a Comment
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *
Why Journals Should Embrace Preprints
The scholarly publishing ecosystem is widely perceived to be experiencing strain in trust, credibility, and research integrity. Growing attention to paper mills, rising retraction numbers, and the experience of the COVID-19 pandemic have highlighted both the importance of rapid scientific communication and the risks when flawed or unverified findings circulate widely.
From Gatekeeping to Stewardship in a Preprint-First World
For those working within scholarly publishing, whether as publishers, librarians, researchers, or technologists, these developments invite serious reflection. A preprint-first approach has the potential to reshape this landscape by increasing transparency, enabling earlier scrutiny, and accelerating knowledge sharing, while also redefining, not diminishing, the role of journals.
A preprint-first ecosystem should not be viewed as a threat to journals. Rather, it represents a structural evolution in how knowledge is disclosed, evaluated, curated, and trusted. The opportunity for publishers lies not in resisting this shift, but in actively shaping it. This is not a binary choice between quality and accessibility, or between rigorous peer review and rapid dissemination. Instead, it requires recognising that transparency and validation serve complementary functions which, when aligned, can strengthen the scholarly enterprise.
How Preprints Interact with the Paper Mill Economy
Paper mills generally operate most effectively in opaque systems where limited visibility restricts scrutiny. As research output has continued to grow steadily over time, traditional integrity safeguards face increasing pressure. Peer review processes, which evolved for lower-volume environments, are often stretched when dealing with large-scale or highly coordinated misconduct.
Introducing a preprint stage increases early visibility by placing manuscripts into the public domain prior to journal evaluation. This creates a timestamped record and broader opportunity for observation, which may affect how fraudulent actors operate.
Early exposure can reduce certain forms of concealment. Public availability may limit the ease with which identical or near-identical material is submitted simultaneously or sequentially to multiple journals. While this does not eliminate the risk of manipulation, it introduces friction into practices that rely on secrecy and time lag.
Community scrutiny can supplement formal oversight. Preprints may invite informal comment, criticism, and independent analysis from researchers and integrity specialists. In some cases, anomalies such as inconsistent data, questionable figures, or problematic methodology have been identified through open discussion or post-publication commentary platforms. Bringing this scrutiny earlier in the research lifecycle may improve the chances of timely detection.
Pattern visibility may improve at the system level. When large volumes of manuscripts are accessible across centralised or interoperable platforms, it becomes easier to observe repeated structures, duplicated imagery, or suspicious authorship patterns. Such signals are more difficult to detect when submissions remain siloed within individual journal systems.
At the same time, preprints are not a comprehensive solution. Actors engaged in misconduct may adapt their strategies, and without supporting mechanisms, such as robust screening, clear accountability structures, and institutional oversight, preprints could also be misused. Technological tools like similarity detection and image analysis can assist, but they should be seen as supportive rather than definitive solutions. Sustained coordination and governance remain essential.
What Helps Constrain Paper Mill Activity
A resilient integrity framework must address underlying incentives, not only detection mechanisms. Challenges often stem from cultures that emphasise publication volume over quality, limited training in responsible research practices, and evaluation systems that reward speed and output disproportionately.
Preprints can contribute by shifting when and how integrity concerns surface, but their effectiveness increases when paired with complementary measures, including:
- AI-supported integrity screening at the preprint stage, which can highlight potential anomalies for further review rather than serving as a final determination.
- Transparent author contribution and data provenance statements, helping clarify accountability and research origins.
- Cross-platform communication and information-sharing between publishers and repositories regarding emerging patterns or concerning behaviours, within appropriate legal and ethical constraints.
- Proportionate data and methodology disclosure in contexts where enhanced transparency is particularly important for verification.
- Broader efforts to rebalance academic incentives toward quality, reproducibility, and meaningful contribution, which require coordination across institutions, funders, and evaluators.
Integrity investment is increasingly recognised as essential to protecting journal's reputation and sustainability. Retractions, corrections, and post-publication disputes carry reputational and operational costs. Earlier visibility and screening may help shift some effort from reactive remediation toward earlier intervention, though this shift is neither automatic nor guaranteed.
Why Publishers Have Historically Resisted — and Why Reassessment Is Timely
Historically, publisher hesitation around preprints has stemmed from a combination of commercial, operational, and reputational concerns, including:
- Potential loss of exclusivity as the first point of formal disclosure
- Disruption of traditional submission-to-publication workflows
- Uncertainty around how preprints interact with subscription or APC-based revenue models
- Copyright and version control complexities
- Concerns about misinterpretation of unreviewed research
- Cultural and process inertia
These concerns are not without merit. However, the broader environment is shifting toward authority grounded in transparency and trust rather than control of access alone. Publishers that adapt their models to incorporate this reality can strengthen their role as stewards of quality and credibility.
Public trust in expertise remains under pressure, and scholarly publishers increasingly operate within a crowded information ecosystem. The central question is whether publishers take a proactive role in shaping transparent systems or remain reactive as external platforms define the norms.
Discovery and the Continuing Role of Journals
Even as preprints expand early access, journals continue to play a critical role in discovery, validation, and contextualisation. Most readers, including clinicians, policymakers, and practitioners, typically rely on curated, peer-reviewed content rather than unfiltered repositories when making high-stakes decisions.
The rapid growth of research output means time, attention, and interpretive capacity are limited. In this context, journal curation and editorial oversight remain central to how knowledge is interpreted and applied.
Preprints shift the point of first availability, but they do not eliminate the demand for trusted filters. Journals increasingly operate less as initial broadcasters and more as authoritative validators, a role that remains essential for credibility and long-term impact.
The Expanded Role of Publishers: From Publication to Engagement
The value of journals increasingly lies not only in what they publish, but in how effectively research is communicated and understood. Research integrity and science communication are mutually reinforcing when aligned carefully.
Publishers are exploring a range of enhancements designed to improve clarity and reach, including:
- Visual and graphical abstracts
- Lay summaries and policy-relevant explanations
- Flexible formatting for varied platforms and audiences
- Audience-specific interpretations for different user groups
- Interactive and multimedia content
These developments open opportunities for improved engagement, but they also carry new risks. Over-simplification, selective emphasis, or sensational framing can distort scientific meaning. As a result, publishers must extend quality control frameworks to include communication accuracy alongside traditional peer review standards.
In this evolving model, journals increasingly differentiate themselves through clarity, usability, and demonstrable impact, not just prestige alone.
Preprints and Journals as Integrated Partners
Rather than functioning as parallel or competing systems, preprints and journals can be designed as complementary stages in a unified research workflow.
A possible future-oriented model could include:
- Deposition of manuscripts on recognised preprint platforms with baseline screening processes
- An initial visibility phase permitting community observation and commentary
- Author refinement in response to early feedback, where appropriate
- Formal editorial and peer review processes focused on validation and scholarly contribution
- Enhanced communication features at the publication stage
- Clear linkage and version tracking between preprint and published record
This approach supports transparency across the research lifecycle while preserving journals’ core value in validation, curation, and interpretation. Implementing such models will require investment in training, infrastructure, and workflow redesign, with careful attention to discipline-specific needs and risk profiles.
Institutional Responsibility and Systemic Sequencing
Institutions and funders increasingly encourage or require preprint deposition before journal submission, particularly in fields where rapid knowledge sharing is beneficial. This sequencing can help:
- Accelerate early visibility of research findings
- Enable earlier identification of potential concerns
While not a definitive solution, this approach represents a structured experiment in shifting aspects of validation from closed processes toward controlled transparency. Effective governance, clear policies, and ongoing evaluation are essential to ensure such models strengthen rather than dilute trust.
Collaboration across publishers, institutions, funders, and research communities remains critical. No single stakeholder can address systemic integrity challenges in isolation.
A Strategic Imperative for Scholarly Publishing
Journals that engage constructively with preprints are not surrendering relevance; they are redefining it. The transition from gatekeeping to stewardship reflects a broader evolution toward trust-based authority and responsible curation.
The scholarly publishing industry has navigated previous shifts — from print to digital, from subscription to open access, and from static to interactive formats. The current focus on transparency, integrity, and communication represents another phase in that trajectory.
The opportunity is substantial: models that combine accessibility with credibility can support innovation, inform policy, and reinforce public confidence in science. The future is not anti-journal; it is post-gatekeeping.
In this landscape, journals succeed not by controlling access, but by strengthening curation, validation, interpretation, and engagement. Preprints become a foundational layer for openness, while journals provide the structured assurance upon which trust is built.
Business models may evolve as publishers invest more heavily in integrity systems and communication capabilities. These investments also create opportunities for differentiation and value creation based on trust and quality.
The path forward requires more than incremental adjustment. It calls for intentional transformation grounded in evidence, realism, and collective responsibility. The future of scholarly publishing will depend not only on what is published but on how effectively reliability, transparency, and usefulness are ensured throughout the research lifecycle.
Keywords
Scholarly Publishing Research Integrity Artificial Intelligence Editorial Workflows Peer Review Paper Mills
Ashutosh Ghildiyal brings nearly two decades of experience in author services, business development, and strategic leadership. He has worked closely with authors, institutions, and scholarly publishers worldwide, driving sustainable growth and international market expansion. Ashutosh currently serves as Vice President, Growth & Strategy at Integra. A regular contributor to industry publications and blogs, Ashutosh writes on topics including AI, peer review, research integrity, and the evolving landscape of academic publishing. He serves on the Board of Directors of ISMTE, the ISMTE Asia-Pacific Advisory Council, the Steering Committee for Peer Review Week, and the Advisory Cabinet of the Asian Council of Science Editors (ACSE). Ashutosh is passionate about reaffirming the industry’s core values of openness, compassion, and community. To him, scholarly publishing represents a vital ecosystem that safeguards the integrity and meaning of global academic discourse. As the landscape continues to evolve, he advocates for change that honors the industry’s fundamental purpose: serving as gatekeepers of trust and knowledge in society.
View All Posts by Ashutosh GhildiyalDisclaimer
The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of their affiliated institutions, the Asian Council of Science Editors (ACSE), or the Editor’s Café editorial team.
