Preprints are now a routine part of scholarly communication in many fields, especially biomedicine and parts of the life and social sciences. Survey data from ~1,800 biomedical researchers in North America (early 2025) show that two‑thirds read preprints, about half have posted them, and about one‑third have cited them in the past two years [1]. At the same time, evaluation systems (grants, hiring, tenure) still prioritize peer‑reviewed journal articles: more than 60% of evaluators say they give more credit to journal papers than to preprints [1][2].

Key factors

1. Citation behaviour and visibility

• Empirical work (e.g., Fraser et al. cited in [2]) finds a positive association between posting preprints and later citation counts for the peer‑reviewed version: preprinted articles tend to receive more citations and altmetric attention.

• In recent surveys:

  • ~33% of biomedical researchers reported citing preprints in their own work in the previous two years [1][2].

  • Junior researchers perceive preprints as improving their citations and overall professional impact more than seniors do (odds ratios ~1.9 for collaborations, citations and impact) [2].

• As funders and journals normalize preprints, citation practices will continue shifting toward:

  • More citations to preprints directly (especially for fast‑moving topics).

  • Earlier citation of work (preprint, then updated to the journal article).

1. Grant, hiring, and tenure decisions today

• Among respondents involved in funding, hiring, or tenure decisions, more than 60% give more credit to peer‑reviewed papers than to preprints; fewer than 12% credit both equally [1].

• In a broader survey, about 55–56% of committee members report giving less credit to preprints in:

  • Faculty job applications.

  • Tenure reviews [2].

• Only a small minority (~6–8%) say they give preprints the same or more credit than journal articles in these high‑stakes evaluations [2].

• Many evaluators cite time constraints and trust in journals as gatekeepers (e.g., “Nobody has time to read preprints from 30 candidates; thus, we use journal publications” [1]).

1. Perceived career effects

• Junior researchers:

  • Are more likely to use and post preprints.

  • Believe more strongly that preprints help with citations, collaborations, and visibility [1][2].

  • At the same time, they are more likely to fear that preprints can harm advancement (odds ratio ~2.0 for perceiving preprints as detrimental to tenure/promotion) [2].

• Senior researchers and gatekeepers:

  • Value preprints for speed and openness, but remain cautious about counting them as equivalent to peer‑reviewed outputs.

  • Frequently treat preprints as a signal of productivity and initiative, but not as central evidence of rigor.

1. Policy shifts by funders and institutions

• Funders:

  • The Gates Foundation now requires grantees to post all manuscripts as preprints and has stopped paying article processing charges for paywalled “open access” options [1].

  • Other major funders increasingly allow or encourage preprints in grant applications.

• Universities and promotion/tenure committees:

  • Many P&T policies still focus on journals, impact factors, and citation counts; however, there is a trend—especially in open‑science‑oriented institutions—toward:

  • Allowing preprints in dossiers.

  • Asking candidates to explain the significance of preprinted work and whether it is under review or accepted.

  • Several open‑science reward frameworks explicitly recommend recognizing preprints in promotion and tenure [3].

1. Quality, misinformation, and risk perception

• Around 42% of biomedical survey respondents expect that preprints that spread misinformation will have a strongly negative effect on science [1].

• Concerns:

  • Lack of formal peer review at the point of dissemination.

  • Risks to patient safety in clinically oriented fields.

  • Potential for AI‑generated or low‑quality mass submissions.

• Mitigations:

  • Preprint servers such as bioRxiv/medRxiv screen submissions for basic scientific validity and public‑health risks, and ~80% of preprints eventually appear in peer‑reviewed journals [1][2].

Likely evolution over the next 5–10 years

1. Citations: from advantage to expectation

• Posting preprints will increasingly be a de facto expectation for timely, visible work in many fields.

• Citation advantages documented to date will likely persist:

  • Preprints bring earlier discovery and more time for others to cite.

  • They increase altmetric visibility (news, social media, blogs), which is correlated with later citations in some domains.

• Evaluation of citation records will increasingly:

  • Consider combined citations to preprint + published version.

  • Use field‑normalized metrics (e.g., FWCI, percentile ranks) that can incorporate preprint‑driven early citations.

1. Tenure and promotion: from discounting to structured inclusion

• Short term (next 3–5 years):

  • Preprints will continue to be discounted relative to journal articles in most tenure decisions.

  • Committees will:

  • Accept preprints as evidence of pipeline and momentum.

  • Focus final tenure judgments on accepted/published papers, external letters, and grant track record.

• Medium term (5–10 years):

  • As preprint use becomes nearly ubiquitous and most preprints translate to peer‑reviewed articles, many departments will:

  • Allow preprints under review or in revision to count partially (e.g., weighted less than accepted papers).

  • Ask external reviewers to comment explicitly on high‑impact preprints.

  • Recognize preprints as legitimate evidence of contribution in rapidly evolving areas (e.g., AI, epidemiology, climate science).

1. Field differences

• Biomedicine and clinical fields will remain more conservative:

  • Stronger emphasis on peer review due to patient‑safety concerns.

  • Preprints weighted more cautiously in tenure/promotion, but still valuable for demonstrating productivity.

• Physics, math, CS, some social sciences:

  • Long history with arXiv and similar servers.

  • In some subfields, preprints already function as the primary research record; tenure committees informally treat highly cited preprints as nearly equivalent to journal articles once accepted.

1. Strategic implications for researchers

• Use preprints to:

  • Establish priority and visibility.

  • Accelerate citations to work that will later appear in journals.

  • Demonstrate productivity and pipeline for hiring/tenure dossiers.

• But also:

  • Clearly indicate status (submitted, under review, accepted).

  • Avoid relying on preprints alone for key dossier pieces in conservative fields.

  • Pair preprints with robust open data/code to bolster perceived quality and reproducibility.

Counterarguments and constraints

• Some argue that widespread preprinting undermines peer review and encourages premature citation of unvetted findings.

• Survey data show many evaluators do not yet trust preprints enough to award them equal credit [1][2].

• Because institutional change is slow, formal tenure guidelines may lag behind practice for years; informal norms may diversify by department and region.

• There is also a risk that reliance on preprints amplifies visibility inequalities (lab reputation, social‑media reach, geography), which committees will need to be alert to when weighing preprint‑based attention or citations.

Actionable guidance

For early‑ and mid‑career scientists:

• Post preprints for all substantial work once ready, especially in fields where this is normalized.

• In CVs and tenure packets:

• Separate sections: “Peer‑reviewed publications,” “Preprints (under review / in revision / published subsequently).”

• For key preprints, include brief impact notes (citations, code re‑use, policy mentions).

• Use preprints strategically for:

• Time‑sensitive results.

• Multi‑year projects where early partial results are important for grants/jobs.

• Do not assume preprints replace the need for strong peer‑reviewed outputs; treat them as a complementary signal that can enhance citations and demonstrate momentum.