Motivation and concerns regarding the use of preprints among Brazilian health researchers: a survey
Pertile, A.; Dotto, L.; Prado, M. C.; Pilecco, R. O.; Agostini, B. A.; Pereira, G. K. R.; Sarkis-Onofre, R.
Show abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the motivations and concerns related to preprint use among Brazilian health researchers. A mixed-methods online survey of all 1,596 holders of CNPq Research Productivity Grants in seven health fields was conducted in 2025. The questionnaire was adapted from a survey of bioRxiv authors, translated into Portuguese, and pilot-tested. Closed-ended responses were analyzed descriptively, and free-text responses were grouped by similarity. Overall, 178 researchers accessed the survey (11.2%), and 143 answered items on preprints and were included in the final analysis (9.0% effective response rate). The mean age was 55.9 years, and 88.0% were affiliated with public institutions. Regarding corresponding-author publications over the previous five years, 62.2% of respondents had deposited no preprints, while 37.8% had deposited at least one. Among preprints users, 79.2% agreed that deposition was freely decided by the authors. The main motivations were rapid sharing of findings (69.8%) and obtaining feedback (49.1%). Few reported benefits in terms of citations (17.3%) or online dissemination (16.9%). Among those who had not deposited preprints, the main reason was not wanting to deposit them (57.6%), followed by being unaware of the option (35.3%). Of the 22 free-text responses, 19 reflected an informed decision not to deposit, most commonly because peer review was considered necessary before public dissemination. Preprint use was limited mainly by a lack of intention to deposit rather than a lack of awareness. Faster dissemination and feedback were the main motivations for using preprints.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Attitudes and Practices of Open Data, Preprinting, and Peer-review - a Cross Sectional Study on Croatian Scientists 95%
- Knowledge and motivations of training in peer review: an international cross-sectional survey 95%
- Advancing science or advancing careers? Researchers' opinions on success indicators 94%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Cohort Study Protocol of the Brazilian Collaborative Research Network on COVID-19: strengthening WHO global data 93%
- A systematic examination of preprint platforms for use in the medical and biomedical sciences setting 92%
- Participatory research in health intervention studies involving migrants: a systematic review 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.