A comprehensive analysis of articles submitted to preprint servers from one laboratory (VKPrasad Lab at UCSF): Download statistics, rates of rejection, and reasons for rejection: Are preprint servers acting fairly or playing politics?

Introduction: Preprint servers have become an increasingly popular way to disseminate scientific information, in part because research articles can be published faster on these servers than via traditional peer-reviewed avenues. While there is no formal peer-review with preprint articles, preprint servers often have a vetting process for published articles, which lacks transparency.

Purpose: We sought to evaluate the submission process of preprint servers by assembling a comprehensive list of articles submitted to these servers and noting their fate.

Methods: We included all articles submitted to SSRN, medRxiv, and Zenodo and that arose from the VKPrasad Laboratory (www.vkprasadlab.com), a health policy and epidemiology lab at UCSF.

Results: Of 16 unique submissions, 6 (38%) resulted in articles being rejected or removed. 4 of those rejected were initially submitted to SSRN and two were initially submitted to medRxiv. All removed articles were on the topic of COVID. Three (50% of rejected/removed articles) were eventually accepted at another preprint server. The median number of downloads for a rejected/removed article that was later accepted by a different server was 4142. The median time from submission to acceptance was 2 days and 4 days for submission to decision of rejection.

Discussion: The submission and acceptance process for preprint servers appears to have inconsistent standards and be a non-transparent process. These servers appear to have a more stringent vetting process for articles on COVID topics, but because of the novelty of the virus, there are fewer absolutes about what is known, suggesting that a free exchange of scientific information is being stifled.