My question is similar to this. If someone wants to publish his work in the medical field, for free but without a review process, how is this seen by the academic world? Are there any online services or platforms that provide this service? Is this usually seen as a problem by the institution in which one may work?
how is this seen by the academic world?
Generally speaking, as inferior to a peer-reviewed paper. But the 'academic world' is made up of a lot of different people. Assuming you have conducted a high-quality study, the extent to which a reader would consider your findings valid or robust or believable really depends on how they feel about the value added by peer-review. Given the growing evidence of the inadequacy of peer-review, the academic world may increasingly see this type of publication as acceptable. But I would suggest that we are not there yet. A more important question for the context of medical research might relate to how the clinical world would see it.
Are there any online services or platforms that provide this service?
Yes. For example, PeerJ Preprints.
Is this usually seen as a problem by the institution in which one may work?
In terms of medical research I would say it definitely would be seen as a problem if used as an alternative (rather than a complement) to publication in a peer-reviewed journal. At an absolute minimum, your institution would probably expect your research output to be indexed by PubMed. If, however, you use the preprint route as a complement to publication in a peer-reviewed journal then it should not be seen as a problem in itself. It could become a problem if your target journal does not accept papers previously published an another form.