AI Insight
A survey of 143 Brazilian health researchers found that 37.8% had deposited at least one preprint in the past five years, primarily motivated by rapid dissemination of findings (69.8%) and obtaining feedback (49.1%). Among the 62.2% who had not used preprints, the main reason was an informed decision not to deposit (57.6%), often because they considered peer review necessary before public dissemination, rather than lack of awareness about preprints.
Why it matters
Understanding researchers' motivations and barriers to preprint adoption is crucial for designing effective policies to promote open science practices in health research. The findings suggest that increasing preprint use in Brazil requires addressing researchers' concerns about disseminating non-peer-reviewed work, rather than simply raising awareness about preprint platforms.
Understand the Science
⚠️ Preprint – Noch nicht peer-reviewed
Dieser Artikel wurde noch nicht von unabhängigen Experten begutachtet. Die Ergebnisse sind vorläufig und sollten mit Vorsicht interpretiert werden.
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.
Source: Motivation and concerns regarding the use of preprints among Brazilian health researchers: a survey