In August 2025, the Delhi High Court issued an order for internet service providers to block access to the “shadow library" Sci-Hub and its mirrors, along with Libgen and its mirror sites in India. This was following a copyright infringement lawsuit filed by major academic publishers, like Elsevier, Wiley, and the American Chemical Society. The publishers argued the sites were engaged in online piracy, and the court found that Sci-Hub's primary purpose was to facilitate copyright infringement. Researchers and academics have vehemently opposed the ban, stating that Sci-Hub is a vital resource for accessing scholarly material otherwise locked behind prohibitively expensive paywalls, especially for students and scholars in India. Intervenors in the case argued that the Indian Copyright Act's provision for fair dealing for research purposes should protect the use of such platforms.
In the context of this debate over access to knowledge, preprint publications are gaining traction as part of India's move toward Open Science. Preprints, non-peer-reviewed manuscripts deposited in public repositories, are seen as the ideal solution for scholarly communication, with Indian government initiatives such as IndiaRxiv and agriRxiv emerging. However, the preprint ecosystem in India is still nascent, with many researchers still preferring global repositories.
To understand the challenges in adopting full open access through preprints and how they are perceived among Indian researchers, the Indian National Young Academy of Science (INYAS), in collaboration with the International Science Council (ISC) and the Department of Science and Technology's Centre for Policy Research (DST-CPR), IISc, conducted a nationwide survey. The entirely voluntary survey had 170 respondents, mostly part of the INYAS network. This initiative followed an online workshop in June 2023, which educated researchers on the benefits and limitations of peer-reviewed preprints.
Traditionally, scientific findings have been disseminated through academic journals, a system that originated in the 17th century. This process involves rigorous peer review, where other experts scrutinise the work for validity and accuracy. While essential for maintaining scientific integrity, this system can be slow and, in recent decades, has become increasingly costly. Many journals operate on a subscription model, often controlled by a few large commercial publishers, leading to exorbitant fees that can limit access for researchers, particularly in developing nations like India. This creates a paradox: publicly funded research, often conducted by unpaid academics, becomes locked behind paywalls, inaccessible to many who could benefit from it.
Did you know? While a French publication, Journal des Sçavans, started on January 5, 1665, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society, which began publication in London on March 6, 1665, edited by Henry Oldenburg is considered the first true scientific journal. |
Against this backdrop, preprints have emerged as an important alternative. They allow researchers to share their work quickly, receive early feedback from peers, and establish priority for their discoveries. The survey, which gathered responses from 170 researchers across India, aimed to understand their publication patterns, awareness, perceived benefits, and concerns regarding preprints. Their findings paint a nuanced picture: while there's a growing interest, adoption remains modest. A significant majority (54.1%) of respondents had never posted a preprint, and only a small fraction (5.3%) consistently published preprints for all their recent papers. However, about one-third (31.8%) had used preprints for some of their work, indicating a cautious but increasing engagement.
Awareness and adoption varied considerably across different career stages and disciplines. Senior researchers showed the highest engagement, with 72.7% having published at least one preprint, compared to only 25% of PhD students. This suggests that familiarity with preprints tends to grow with academic experience. Discipline-wise, fields like computer science, mathematical sciences, interdisciplinary research, and physical sciences showed high preprint usage, with all respondents in the first three categories having published at least one preprint. In contrast, the social sciences, fisheries, and nanotechnology reported very low or no awareness, highlighting the diverse needs and practices across scientific communities. When it came to platforms, bioRxiv was the most popular, favoured by 44.1% of respondents, particularly in biological sciences, followed by arXiv (16.9%) for physics, mathematics, and computer science.
Researchers identified several key benefits of preprints. The most frequently cited advantages were faster dissemination of research (61.1%) and increased visibility and exposure (58.8%). Many also valued the opportunity for early feedback and peer review (55.3%), which can improve the quality of the final published article. Preprints were also seen as tools to facilitate collaboration (31.2%) and help researchers receive early credit and recognition (34.7%), preventing others from 'scooping' their ideas. Practical benefits, like reduced publication costs and time, were also noted, though less frequently.
However, the survey also revealed significant concerns that hinder wider adoption. The most prominent fear was 'scooping' or having research stolen (52.3%), underscoring the need for robust mechanisms to protect intellectual property. Worries about premature media coverage and potential misinformation (42.9%) were also high, as preprints are not yet peer-reviewed. Concerns about the quality and accuracy of unpolished work (38.8%) and the potential for flawed results to be publicly accessible were also significant. Ethical issues, such as confidentiality and privacy violations, and the fear of jeopardising journal acceptance (34.1%), were other major deterrents. Some researchers even reported that plagiarism detection algorithms flagged their own preprints as self-plagiarism when submitting to journals, leading to extra work and caution.
This study, while providing valuable insights into the Indian context, is based on a sample size of 170 respondents, relatively small compared to the vast research community in India, meaning the findings might not fully represent all disciplines. The reliance on self-reported data could also introduce bias, and the quantitative approach might miss some nuanced attitudes.
Nevertheless, the findings are crucial for advancing open science in India. By understanding both the enthusiasm and the reservations, policymakers can develop targeted strategies. The researchers propose several actionable recommendations: launching awareness campaigns through workshops and curriculum integration, formally recognising preprints in grant applications and career assessments, promoting structured peer review for preprints, safeguarding intellectual property with DOIs and timestamps, and developing media guidelines to prevent misrepresentation.
By addressing these concerns and building trust, preprints can become a legitimate and widely adopted channel for scholarly communication. It can accelerate scientific progress, making knowledge more accessible, fostering collaboration, and enhancing the overall quality of research in India and globally.
This article was written with the help of generative AI and edited by an editor at Research Matters.