Scientific fake: how preprints become a trap for the gullible and how not to fall into their net

Imagine: you read a headline — “Scientists have proven that coffee prolongs life by 20 years!” — and the link leads to a “scientific publication.” You share it on social media, and the material turns out to be a preprint. How can you tell a real scientific discovery from a loud fake, dressed in a white coat and decorated with graphs? Let’s figure it out.

A preprint is a draft of a research paper that is made publicly available before (or instead of) publication in a peer-reviewed journal.

According to the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE), this is a manuscript posted on the platform before or in parallel with peer review — and it is not a fact that it will ever pass it. Many preprints remain “scientific semi-finished products.”

What is the danger of preprints?

A preprint looks like science — there are graphs, formulas, links, complex terms. But behind this facade there may be no verification, no reliability, no scientific value. This is what allows a fake to be passed off as the truth under the guise of scientificity.

  • “Scientificity” instead of science

Bloggers, media outlets, and even pseudo-scientists use scientific language and format to create the illusion of authenticity. Complex terms, references to “research,” graphs — all of this turns off critical thinking. The reader thinks, “If it’s written like that, it means it’s been checked.” But there’s no check.

For example: “Neurobiologists from the Petrov Institute have proven that meditation activates quantum fields of consciousness” sounds convincing, but if it is a preprint without a review, then it may simply be the author’s imagination.

Serious and ethical preprint publishing platforms always explicitly warn — both in their user policies and in the metadata of the publication itself — that the material posted has not undergone a peer-review process. It is not an article, but a draft, and it is important for the reader to understand this.

To at least somewhat protect users, many servers (like bioRxiv, arXiv, or SSRN) implement basic moderation. But this should not be confused with peer review. It is only a superficial “pre-filter.”

Moderators simply make sure that the manuscript formally corresponds to the platform’s topic; filter out dangerous content, such as materials that could mislead people about the treatment of serious diseases; check that the text at least remotely resembles a scientific work, and not an essay, advertisement, or conspiracy theory.

  • Small sample

Preprints often do not indicate the limitations of the study. For example: the experiment was conducted on three mice, and the conclusion was: “the medicine will save humanity.” Five people were interviewed — “all residents of the country agree.”

Sign of a fake: the statement about people is based on an experiment with cells/mice/computer model. Small sample of up to 10 respondents.

A sign of truth: it is clearly stated: “the study was conducted on a sample of 2000 people.” For natural sciences, the numbers may vary, but the rule is: the more, the better.

  • Ghost author: no affiliation, no reputation

In peer-reviewed journals, authors are checked: where they work, what publications they have, whether there is a conflict of interest. In preprints, no one asks.

To find out about the author, you can search the Internet for the names of scientists and check where they work. Usually, laboratories and universities publish current lists of their scientists on the websites of the same organizations.

Signs of a fake:
– The author publishes only “sensational” works;

– No information about his lab or university;

– The author has only three articles, all on the same topic, all in preprints.

A sign of truth:

– The author works at a well-known institute;

– He has a history of publications in peer-reviewed journals;

– The lab has specialized in this topic for over ten years.

  • Conflict of interest

Companies often fund research to prove their product’s effectiveness. While peer-reviewed journals require that such conflicts of interest are disclosed, preprints may not.

Signs of a fake:

– The text advertises a specific drug/gadget/method;

– The author is affiliated with the manufacturing company, but this is not stated.

A sign of truth:

– A clear phrase: “The authors declare no conflict of interest”;

– The study was funded by a grant, not a private company.

  • One source

Real scientific breakthroughs are published simultaneously in dozens of leading media outlets. To ensure synchronicity, universities and scientific journals send out embargoed press releases to journalists in advance, with clear instructions: they can only be published from such-and-such a time. This is done so that all media outlets are on air or in print at the same time, without leaks or distortions.

It is doubtful if the news you read was published in a couple of Telegram channels without a link to the source or several publications with a dubious reputation wrote about it, and for some reason the major media are silent.

Sign of a fake:

– The news is only on social networks or on a little-known site;

– No link to the original source — only “scientists say”.

Sign of truth:

– The news has spread to several leading media outlets;

– There is a press release from a university or magazine.

How to distinguish truth from fake: 5 steps to scientific literacy

1. Find the original source

A news item or statement that is presented as the result of scientific work must have a source in the form of an academic article. It is published by scientific journals, which normally monitor the quality of research and send materials for double checking by other scientists.

If the news does not lead to any scientific article, and only publications in the media, notes from blogs or social networks, then most likely it is a fake.

A scientific article should be written in academic language, it should adhere to a specialized structure: there is an abstract, methods are described, there are conclusions, as well as links to other studies.

2. Study the methodology

The reliability of the scientific process is determined by the methodology: how the data was collected, on whom or what the experiment was conducted, how it was measured, how it was analyzed.

Study the purpose and hypothesis of the study, the sample (on whom and how many respondents the study was conducted), how exactly the experiment was conducted, conduct a statistical analysis (what statistical tests were used). If it just says, “We tried it and we liked it,” it’s not science.

3. Check the authors

Look for the authors’ names.
Is there a profile on ResearchGate, ORCID, or the university’s website. An author from Harvard, Stanford, or the Russian Academy of Sciences — higher credibility. An author without affiliation, with three publications on the topic of a “miracle drug” — a red flag.

4. Look for a conflict of interest

At the end of the article (or at the beginning), look for a section: “conflict of interest” or “funding.” “The authors declare no conflict of interest” — good. “This study was funded by a company” — read it critically.

5. Check the resonance

If the discovery is real, many reputable media outlets will write about it. Mass coverage — a higher probability of authenticity. Only a couple of questionable sites — most likely fake or hyperbole.

Safe preprint reading guidelines.

Preprints speed up science, provide feedback, and help share ideas. But they are best treated as a draft, not the ultimate truth. Here is a simple algorithm for analyzing a preprint:

Good preprint:

– Clearly marked as “preprint — not peer-reviewed”;

– Hosted on a reputable service;

– Authors are from well-known institutions;

– There is a warning: “conclusions are preliminary.”

Dangerous preprint:

– Submitted as a “scientific discovery”;

– No “not peer-reviewed” label;

– Author is an “independent researcher” without affiliation;

– Sensational claims, without reservations.

Preprints are a useful tool for scientists, but they are a potential source of misinformation for the public. Scientific literacy is not a luxury today, but a necessity. The ability to distinguish science from pseudoscience, a peer-reviewed article from a draft, is as necessary a skill as the ability to read.