Preprints, research manuscripts shared publicly before formal peer review, have evolved from a niche practice in physics and mathematics into a widely adopted part of scientific communication across disciplines. In the life sciences, this shift accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic, reinforcing the role of rapid, open dissemination in research. A large and growing number of researchers now read, discuss, and build on preprints. However, most preprints are not formally peer reviewed at the time of posting. The gap between how quickly findings are shared and how quickly they are critically evaluated remains an important challenge in scholarly publishing.
For peer reviewers, this shift introduces both new responsibilities and new opportunities. This article outlines how preprint review works, how it differs from journal peer review, and how to approach it effectively.
What a preprint is and where to find them
A preprint is a version of a research manuscript made publicly available before formal peer review. Authors use preprints to share findings quickly, invite feedback, establish priority, and improve access for readers who may not have access to subscription journals.
In the life and health sciences, the most widely used platforms include bioRxiv (biological sciences) and medRxiv (health sciences), both operated by openRxiv. Submissions to these servers undergo basic screening for scope, ethics, and plagiarism, but they are not peer reviewed prior to posting.
Why preprint review matters
A substantial proportion of preprints posted on bioRxiv and medRxiv are later published in peer-reviewed journals, often after revision. At the same time, a meaningful share remain unpublished or take time to move through formal review. In many fields, preprints are widely read and increasingly cited before journal publication. As a result, errors, overinterpretations, or unsupported claims can circulate well before formal evaluation is complete.
Engaging with preprints as a reviewer helps strengthen the research record earlier in the communication cycle. Platforms such as Review Commons support this by enabling journal-independent peer review that can accompany preprints and be transferred across participating journals. Community-led efforts, including initiatives from ASAPbio, further advocate for transparent and openly available review reports to improve accountability and trust.
How preprint review differs from journal review
The core principles of good peer review remain the same. However, the context in which preprint review takes place introduces important differences. When conducted through structured platforms, preprint reviews are often shared publicly alongside the manuscript. This broadens the audience beyond authors and editors to include other researchers and readers. As a result, clarity, tone, and constructiveness become even more important.
Preprint review can also be more rapid and iterative. Authors may revise and repost updated versions in response to feedback, and reviewers may engage with work that is still evolving. Compared to the structured, round-based process of journal peer review, this often calls for prioritizing the most significant issues rather than producing exhaustive reports.
Practical guidance for reviewing preprints
The fundamentals remain unchanged:
- Assess whether the research question is clear.
- The methods are appropriate and reproducible.
- The conclusions are supported by the data.
- Identify key limitations and areas that require clarification or additional evidence.
Given the public nature of many preprint reviews, it is useful to write with multiple audiences in mind:
- Authors, who need clear and actionable feedback
- Researchers, who rely on the review to interpret the work
- Editors, who may consider the review during journal submission
A structured approach is effective: begin with a concise summary, highlight strengths, outline prioritized concerns, and close with specific, constructive suggestions.
One important distinction: avoid framing your review around whether the manuscript should or should not be published. Publication decisions rest with editors. Instead, focus on the strength of the evidence and the validity of the conclusions.
Credit and recognition for preprint review
Peer review has traditionally been invisible work. Preprint review, particularly when conducted through formal platforms, introduces greater transparency and recognition. In many cases, reviews can be publicly attributed and, depending on the platform, citable. Services like ORCID (Open Researcher and Contributor ID) allow researchers to document peer review contributions, creating a verifiable record of their work.
As preprint review becomes more integrated with journal workflows through portable review models and transparent peer review initiatives, its role as part of a reviewer’s professional contribution is likely to grow. Rather than replacing traditional peer review, it is increasingly part of the same continuum.
We’d like to hear from you
Have you reviewed a preprint? How did the experience compare to traditional journal review? Share your thoughts in the comments below.
For structured guidance on peer review across all contexts, including preprints and emerging review models, join the ReviewerOne Community.
Leave a Comment