Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Include preprints #49

Open
ctb opened this issue Jun 2, 2016 · 8 comments
Open

Include preprints #49

ctb opened this issue Jun 2, 2016 · 8 comments

Comments

@ctb
Copy link

ctb commented Jun 2, 2016

Preprinting (as opposed to open access, #9) seems like an omission from the current topic suggestions.

@ctb
Copy link
Author

ctb commented Jun 2, 2016

Here the wikipedia page on journals by preprint policy would be a great resource to link to, along with more rhetorically persuasive pages.

@aleimba
Copy link
Collaborator

aleimba commented Jun 2, 2016

That's a good idea, thanks @ctb.

Other nice resources are also:
http://www.sherpa.ac.uk/romeo/search.php
https://rchive.it/ (a wrapper for SHERPA/ROMEO)

@ctb
Copy link
Author

ctb commented Jun 2, 2016 via email

@konrad
Copy link
Member

konrad commented Jun 2, 2016

Thanks for your input, @ctb! I personally would count this still as part of open access (#9). In the open access topic the different paths (golden, green (i.e. preprints and instistitutional repositories) and diamond open access) should be described. But independent if this will be a distinct topic or part of open access (#9) it is good to have this explicitly mentioned as something to that needs to be addressed.

@ctb
Copy link
Author

ctb commented Jun 2, 2016 via email

@konrad
Copy link
Member

konrad commented Jun 2, 2016

Okay, just a question of "marketing" :) Good point.

@RomanGurinovich
Copy link

Would be great to list benefits for each group. For example,

Authors:

  1. Fixing issues by suggestions.
  2. Citing growth.

Publishers:

  1. Gems early discovery.

Companies and Funding bodies:

  1. Faster proof of the topic viability

What are the other benefits?

@ctb
Copy link
Author

ctb commented Jun 3, 2016

I don't think authors always view the opportunity to have more people review their work as a positive ;).

There's a more complete list in the figshare preprint I link to above, but in addition to citations and finding out about major problems BEFORE the peer reviewers, I also see:

  • authors benefit by getting the work out there and citable during the (sometimes lengthy) peer review process; in many physics fields, peer review can take years, but in the meantime everyone has read the paper.
  • preprints establish priority of publication.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

4 participants