Breaking Down the “Preprint Hierarchy”: Can Anyone Become a Scientific Author?

In the traditional world of scientific publishing, the path to authorship is steep and often narrow. A small circle of established experts has the key to the kingdom, dictating the rules and expectations that govern who gets published, when, and how. These gatekeepers have long held the power to validate research, determine its credibility, and decide which studies gain visibility in the scientific community. But now, with the rise of preprints, the entire landscape of scientific authorship is being turned on its head.

Imagine a world where anyone with a breakthrough idea or a novel hypothesis can bypass the usual gatekeeping process, step into the limelight, and share their work with the world. A world where the usual credentials, prestigious affiliations, or decades of academic experience aren’t the only tickets to publishing. Preprints are making this a reality, breaking down the barriers of traditional publishing and democratizing authorship in a way previously thought impossible.

But can anyone truly become a scientific author in the realm of preprints? Is the playing field as level as it appears, or is there a new “preprint hierarchy” taking shape?

At first glance, preprints seem like the ultimate equalizer in science. In a preprint system, any researcher—no matter their background or status—can submit their work to a repository and make it publicly available. No formal peer review is required. This accessibility means that budding scientists, marginalized voices, and non-traditional researchers can all share their findings with the world, often faster than the glacial pace of traditional journals. With preprints, the barriers to entry are much lower, allowing more people to contribute to the scientific conversation.

However, a closer look reveals that the preprint world is not without its own hierarchies. While the open-access nature of preprints may seem to offer universal access, the reality is that certain researchers still hold more influence in this space. Big names in academia, for instance, may receive more attention simply because of their established reputation. Their preprints are likely to be downloaded, discussed, and cited far more than those from an unknown researcher, even if the research is of equal quality.

Moreover, preprint platforms themselves can exhibit subtle biases. Repositories like arXiv or bioRxiv may dominate certain fields, meaning that researchers outside these ecosystems—perhaps working on emerging topics or in less mainstream disciplines—might struggle to gain traction. The very platforms that democratize research also reflect the existing scientific ecosystem’s biases, inadvertently creating a kind of “preprint hierarchy” where some voices are heard more loudly than others.

This is not to say that the preprint movement isn’t revolutionary—it is. The ability to publish quickly and openly allows ideas to spread fast, spurring innovation and collaboration. For instance, during the COVID-19 pandemic, preprints enabled scientists across the globe to share data and findings in real-time, accelerating the search for solutions and treatments. Preprints have the power to change the tempo of scientific progress, allowing ideas to be tested and iterated upon before they’re formally peer-reviewed.

Yet, as with any disruptive technology, there are challenges. The lack of peer review in the preprint process leaves room for misinformation, sloppy science, or unsubstantiated claims. Some researchers, especially those without significant academic experience, may lack the resources to conduct rigorous studies or may be swayed by confirmation bias in their research, leading to the dissemination of less reliable work.

Furthermore, preprints don’t always garner the respect they deserve from the broader scientific community. Despite their growing prevalence, many established journals and researchers still view preprints with skepticism, often dismissing them as “unfinished” or “unverified” research. This can create a culture of “second-class citizenship” for preprints, where work shared on these platforms doesn’t always carry the same weight as formally published papers, even though it may be of equal or greater importance.

So, can anyone become a scientific author through preprints? In theory, yes. Theoretically, preprints open the floodgates for anyone—from students to independent researchers to underrepresented scientists—to step up and share their work. In practice, however, the preprint landscape is still shaped by certain inequities. Success in the preprint world often depends on factors such as reputation, field of research, and access to resources, which can reinforce existing disparities within science.

To truly break down the “preprint hierarchy,” the scientific community must recognize the value in all contributions, not just those from established researchers or prestigious institutions. Researchers from all walks of life need to be supported and encouraged to share their ideas, with an emphasis on quality and transparency over status. The true power of preprints lies not in the ability to bypass traditional publishing but in the potential for inclusivity, where the voices of many—not just the few—can shape the future of science.

Ultimately, while the preprint system offers an exciting opportunity for democratizing scientific publishing, it’s clear that true equality in authorship will require more than just open access. It will require a shift in attitudes, practices, and infrastructures that support and uplift diverse voices in science, ensuring that anyone with the passion and the ideas can truly become a scientific author—whether their name is well-known or not.