Preprint Communication Norms and Credibility Judgments in Scientific Online Communities: Insights from Panel Analysis

Abstract

The rapid ascent of preprint repositories has transformed scientific communication by facilitating the immediate dissemination of research findings. However, the absence of formal peer review before publication introduces significant challenges for readers attempting to evaluate the credibility of preprints. To address this issue, this study examines how the communication norms displayed in scientific online communities influence subsequent credibility judgments of preprint manuscripts. Drawing on the Elaboration Likelihood Model and theories of epistemic vigilance, we conduct a longitudinal panel analysis using a large-scale dataset compiled from scientific discussion platforms and preprint repositories. Our analytical sample tracks the interactive dynamics of preprints over multiple consecutive time periods. We evaluate how the technical specificity, politeness, and expert authority of community comments shape subsequent recommendations and citations. The empirical results demonstrate that highly specific technical commentary and polite constructive feedback significantly improve the perceived credibility of preprints. Furthermore, we find that the presence of high-authority commentators moderates these relationships, amplifies positive feedback loops, and dampens the negative effects of overly critical discourse. These findings offer important theoretical contributions to scholarly communication and provide practical implications for the design of feedback mechanisms on open science platforms.