Motivation and concerns regarding the use of preprints among Brazilian health researchers: a survey
- 1Graduate Program in Dentistry, Atitus University, Passo Fundo, RS, Brazil
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.
Related
- Early insights into nurses' perceptions, opportunities, and concerns regarding Ambient artificial intelligence in nursing practice
- Family and informal caregivers’ acceptance, concerns and expectations regarding artificial intelligence-enabled dementia care: a protocol for qualitative evidence synthesis
- Perceptions, attitudes, and concerns of underrepresented groups regarding the use of big data in children and young people’s healthcare research – A systematic literature review
- Evaluating Large Language Models as Tools to Navigate Researchers in Rapidly Evolving Research Landscapes: A Case Study in Cancer Drug Response Prediction
- Internal Grant Review: A Pre-Submission Program for Early-Career Clinical and Translational Researchers
BibTeX
@misc{pertile2026motivation,
title = {{Motivation and concerns regarding the use of preprints among Brazilian health researchers: a survey}},
author = {A. Pertile and L. Dotto and M. C. Prado and R. O. Pilecco and B. A. Agostini and G. K. R. Pereira and R. Sarkis-Onofre},
howpublished = {medRxiv},
year = {2026},
month = sep,
doi = {10.64898/2026.09.11.26362857},
url = {https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.11.26362857v1},
note = {CC BY},
}
RIS
TY - UNPB
TI - Motivation and concerns regarding the use of preprints among Brazilian health researchers: a survey
AU - A. Pertile
AU - L. Dotto
AU - M. C. Prado
AU - R. O. Pilecco
AU - B. A. Agostini
AU - G. K. R. Pereira
AU - R. Sarkis-Onofre
PY - 2026
DA - 2026/09/11
PB - medRxiv
DO - 10.64898/2026.09.11.26362857
UR - https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.64898/2026.09.11.26362857v1
AB - 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.
ER -