Preprints are research manuscripts shared publicly before formal peer review. They have evolved from a niche practice in physics and mathematics into a widely adopted part of scientific communication across disciplines.
For peer reviewers, this shift introduces both new responsibilities and new opportunities. Preprint review can strengthen the research record earlier in the communication cycle.
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.
In the life and health sciences, widely used platforms include bioRxiv and medRxiv. Submissions undergo basic screening for scope, ethics, and plagiarism, but they are not peer reviewed before posting.
Why preprint review matters
Many preprints are later published in peer-reviewed journals, often after revision. Others remain unpublished or circulate for some time before formal evaluation. Errors, overinterpretations, and unsupported claims can therefore spread before journal peer review is complete.
Structured preprint review helps authors improve manuscripts and helps readers interpret findings with more context.
How preprint review differs from journal review
The core principles of good peer review remain the same. The difference is context. Preprint reviews are often public, meaning authors, researchers, readers, and sometimes editors may all rely on the report.
Preprint review can also be more rapid and iterative. Authors may revise and repost updated versions in response to feedback, so reviewers should prioritize the most significant issues rather than producing exhaustive reports.
Practical guidance for reviewing preprints
- Assess whether the research question is clear.
- Check whether the methods are appropriate and reproducible.
- Ask whether conclusions are supported by the data.
- Identify key limitations and areas requiring clarification or additional evidence.
Given the public nature of many preprint reviews, write with multiple audiences in mind: authors who need actionable feedback, researchers who rely on the review to interpret the work, and editors who may consider the review during journal submission.
Avoid framing the review around whether the manuscript should or should not be published. Publication decisions rest with editors. Focus instead on the strength of the evidence and validity of the conclusions.
Credit and recognition for preprint review
Preprint review can introduce greater transparency and recognition. In many cases, reviews can be publicly attributed and citable. Services like ORCID allow researchers to document peer review contributions, creating a verifiable record of the work.
