A trio of commentaries explores whether it makes sense for early-career scientists to post public copies of articles before they are accepted by journals — or even submitted to them (see G. McDowell F1000Research 5, 294; 2016). The authors, who include elite scientists, junior faculty members and postdoctoral researchers, examine whether depositing work on preprint servers is an opportunity or a vulnerability for young researchers. Early-career scientists harbour concerns about persuading colleagues to agree to a preprint, being ignored or receiving criticism on social media or from senior members of the field. But preprints also allow them to demonstrate their research productivity independently of unpredictable publishing timelines. It is unclear how preprints are taken into account by grant reviewers or hiring and promotion committees, and many researchers worry that the data could be used by rivals who might then beat them to publication. But early disclosure can also spark fruitful collaborations, says one author, who credits his preprint for initiating connections that accelerated his follow-up work. The commentaries are linked to last month's Accelerating Science and Publication in Biology meeting in Chevy Chase, Maryland.