Back

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.

2026-09-13 health policy
10.64898/2026.09.11.26362857 medRxiv
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.

50% of probability mass above

"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.