In my case and my humble opinion, I prefer not to submit preprints or read them. I always choose to wait to have my research published. From what is submitted to the journals to what is finally published is quite a long way, and with modifications, the final result is always different. In addition, journals always ask not to have published the manuscripts before and by the fact of sharing a preprint the originality is already affected. In any case, I think it is up to the discretion of each academic.

In my case and my humble opinion, I prefer not to submit preprints or read them. I always choose to wait to have my research published. From what is submitted to the journals to what is finally published is quite a long way, and with modifications, the final result is always different. In addition, journals always ask not to have published the manuscripts before and by the fact of sharing a preprint the originality is already affected. In any case, I think it is up to the discretion of each academic.

Publication and distribution (sending as requested publications, uploading to RG, &c.) of preprints [whether "peer"-reviewed or not is here irrelevant!] is an extremely harmful custom, in fact a kind of fraud (e.g. as suggesting precedence over other publications what e.g. in taxonomy is a very important aspect [Principle of Priority!]), and should be treated as an offence against serious science!

I find preprints are helpful if the results are descriptive or will not be further tested. For example, my only preprint is part of a larger study, and it provides descriptive information which could be relevant to others. While such a paper would never be accepted by a journal, it is not any less relevant or credible. Some information, especially outside of a formal research question, can still prove useful.

Otherwise, caveat emptor: As others stated, peer review, properly done, greatly enhances a research project. There is the problem a lot of time peer review is neither rigorous nor helpful.

I believe that the preprint is a confirmation of the date of your priority. It is nice means for sharing your results. In my opinion, the future of science will be evolved on the basis of self-publications and all bureaucratic journals will be disappeared. In 2021 SCOPUS will start to include preprints in the database.

Vadym: Self-publication is one thing, preprint is another: the former (like my Procrustomachia) is inded the best possibility and the more popular will it be the better, but it should be self-publication (finally formulated and finally edited, without possibility to further change of any point or comma!), not (either "self-" or not!) pre-publication bringing chaos and confusion to scientific literature and serving only to claim a fraudulent priority over those who honestly refrain from publishing their papers until they are truly ready for publication!

Dear Roman Bohdan Hołyński , could you give few examples of fraudulent priority on the basis of preprint? I have not seen this in my experience. As an example, https://arxiv.org records all the arrival dates of different versions of the same preprint and all modifications can be detected and identified. May be the ResearchGate needs to improve this procedure.

In any case, your Procrustomachia is a very nice idea. It is the best solution for all scientists. I think that every scientist in the future will have such a personal journal for self-publications and other bureaucratic journals will be no need.

Vadym: Every "preprint" is "by definition" (and usually by intention...) a potential case of "fraudulent priority". Suppose your paper appeared in print in January 2021 (and, as it should be, only then became accessible to readers)... Somewhat later - say, February 2021 - appears a paper by other scientist with similar results, The true priority is yours. But the earlier version of that other paper has been previously (say, from July 2020) distributed as "preprints", so the majority of the readers will consider your paper as published later (you might even be accused of plagiarism!). And the fact that "https://arxiv.orgrecords all the arrival dates of different versions of the same preprint and all modifications can be detected and identified" does not helps much: I wonder how many readers - even if having realized (what is also not always evident...) that they have seen "preprint" instead of final version... - will search in "https-s" and compare the "different versions" (e.g. as to me, even such possibility has never came to my mind...).

Dear Roman Bohdan Hołyński , thank you for your answer. I appreciate your point of view. On the other hand, at this time I have 21 preprints in ResearchGate and 5 in EasyChair. I use preprints only 2 last years. I think that it is a guaranty of my priority similar to patents and can help other scientists to change and adapt their publications with citing of these preprints before the official publication of my results in conference papers and journal articles. The procedure in a journal has a very long time and can be finished without publication with a negative opinion of review. In this case, you lose time and your priority, because another author can be published similar results after your request to the journal.

I have a case with the publication of my theory of face-splitting product of matrices in article

Article End matrix products in radar applications

This article was got in the journal in December 1996 and published only in 1998.

Before December 1996 I sent this article to a mathematics journal and got a renouncement of a stupid editor. It was a miracle that Josep Fortiani (Barselona) was published the same idea in a conference paper only in Jyli 1999.

Vadym: Yes, the obligatory pre-publication "peer"- reviewing system is one of the currently dominating, extremely harmful (among others, also by nonsensically delaying publication-cycle) procedures, introduced to control and censor what can and what cannot be published, and making honest behaviour increasingly difficult or even impossible for scientists. But anyway, "publication" and distribution of "preprints", even if in your (and similar) cases necessary and formally "legal", is a bad practice and - sorry! - I would not (even if I work in the same field) consciously "cite your preprints before the official publication", simply because this would be dishonest from my side: "preprint" is not a publication, so should not be cited! In my speciality, zoological taxonomy, preprints are also formally not considered "valid" publications, and e.g. the names of described taxa (or any other nomenclatural acts) are considered "available" only from the date of official - final - publication. And so should it be, although current "novelties" (entirely electronic publications and custom of "preprints") brings terrible chaos and confusion, so that frequently nobody knows what and when has been validly published and what and when has not, and in consequence who has priority - I had just this in mind saying about "fraudulent [even if often, perhaps, not conscious] claim of priority"!

Roger - I know of 1 or 2 famous examples of excellent papers in pure mathematics that had circulated only in preprint form, have never been published, and quoted quite a lot - in preprint form. But most of the papers I dealt with, were published or at least accepted in a journal. It's always useful to have a date of acceptance stamped on the published manuscript, or a date of submission on a preprint (not yet accepted or not yet peer-reviewed), to avoid further discussions on the priorities of one's findings.

Thank you George Stoica ! I agree with you. The science world evolved and radically changed. The system of preprints has a big role in the current time. And dear Roman Bohdan Hołyński I believe that it is necessary to cite all the preprints in the same way as the reports and articles of the conference, as well as cite the speeches, video etc. It will be ethical. I fully agree with Roman Bohdan Hołyński that the obligatory pre-publication "peer"- reviewing system is one of the currently dominating, extremely harmful (among others, also by nonsensically delaying publication-cycle) procedures.

Vadym: "I believe that it is necessary to cite all the preprints in the same way as the reports and articles of the conference, as well as cite the speeches, video etc." - well, this is your opinion and you have of course full right to believe whatever you consider appropriate, but I cannot agree with you on this point: we must keep a clear difference between what is a scientific publication and what is not, otherwise we should cite everything what a chum of our chum said in a pub over a mug of beer...

If it has been accepted, even if not yet in final form, I'd be okay citing it as 'in press", but if it hasn't even been submitted I wouldn't cite it as an article, but perhaps as a personal communication from the author

Hi

if we publish paper or article or any book chapter to any journal ..it is peer-reviewed and then we get either acceptance or rejection...but when we preprint papers we want some corrections...suggestions....recommendations...which can be helpful before we publish it in any reputed journal.....