I’m debating whether academic institutions should consider a ResearchGate preprint (without formal peer review) as a valid timestamp for claiming priority of discovery. In my view, this influences funding decisions and hiring criteria. Has anyone seen policies or concrete examples where such preprints have swayed grant panels or tenure committees? Insights or references much appreciated.
This would open the door to fraudsters who can easily create AI-generated preprints in large quantities.
Preprints, such as those on ResearchGate, provide early timestamps for priority claims but lack peer review, raising concerns about their use in funding or hiring decisions. In fast-evolving fields like biomedical research, preprints are seen as valuable for rapid dissemination but are generally weighted less than peer-reviewed publications. While some funding bodies and institutions recognize preprints, most still prioritize peer-reviewed work. Preprints are increasingly acknowledged in grant evaluations and academic hiring, particularly for time-sensitive research, but they are not yet universally accepted as substitutes for peer-reviewed articles in funding, tenure, or hiring decisions, though this may change over time.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Social Science