Does removing gatekeepers democratize the diffusion of knowledge? Evidence from COVID-19 preprints

Online platforms such as preprint servers have become an increasingly important way to disseminate new knowledge prior to peer review. In contrast to peer-reviewed research, preprints have no barriers to publication and no quality certification. Removing barriers to publication has the potential to democratize access to knowledge. However, the considerable uncertainty about the quality of unpublished research could lead audiences to assess preprints based on observable aspects of the preprint such as country of origin of the authors. This study explores how readers allocated attention across preprints in a context of great urgency (the initial months of the COVID-19 pandemic). We find that, after controlling carefully for article quality, preprints with authors from Chinese institutions receive less attention, and preprints with authors from US institutions receive more attention than preprints with authors from the rest of the world during the early months of the pandemic. In an exploration of potential mechanisms driving the observed effects, we find that Chinese authors are less likely to be promoted by self-organizing screening mechanisms that drive attention to preprints, such as twitter endorsements, and the response to endorsement does not close the attention gap. The results suggest that biases may persist or even be exacerbated on platforms designed to promote unfettered access to early research findings in a context of high urgency and uncertainty.