Aman, Valeria, (2014). Is There Any Measurable Benefit in Publishing Preprints in The arXiv Section Quantitative Biology
Lariviere, Vincent, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Benoit Macaluso, et al. (2013). arXiv E-Prints and the Journal of Record: An Analysis of Roles and Relationships
More Information on Preprints
Create a Publons account to track and verify your peer review activities. Connect your Publons account to your ORCID profile to make your review activities available to other scholars, universities, funders, publishers and scholarly societies.
Three Models of Post-Publication Review
Open Peer Review
In an open peer review model all aspects of the publication and review processes are made publicly accessible, including :
Wellcome Open Research does open peer review. And this is what an article looks like on their site:
Pros | Cons |
Faster and wider dissemination: no wait times, no paywalls
|
Perception of low quality: misunderstanding of preprints as manuscripts that can't pass peer review
|
Record of priority: permanent datestamp within 24hrs of posting
|
Risk of disseminating invalid findings: unvetted papers may be picked up by the public, journalists, etc. |
Does not preclude publication: usually not considered prior publication. Check SHERPA/RoMEO for specific journal preprint policies
|
Risk of embargo violations: If press or public publish findings from preprint may be considered prior publication |
Establish a body of work: Good for early career researchers; funders like NIH and Wellcome accept preprints as part of application
|
|
Rapid evaluation of results: lots of eyes on a given paper |
Research papers are no longer considered the only first-class research output. Increasingly scholars are sharing outputs like: