What is possible legitimacy of publishing in such a way. Does it have any same value as that published in Journals or is it just to show that one has done some work ahead of any other in that field?
I am at odd whether to publishing as "Preprints"can be indexed or cited same as published in a journal, and is it possible to publsih in a peer review journal after being online in "Preprints"?
A "preprint" such as in the Arxiv.org has the advantage that your authorship is fixed. Why?
Because if (part of) your paper appears later somewhere else, you can prove by priority of the submission date who is the author.
My personal understanding is that a "preprint" is a paper accepted for publication in a journal, and released (to the public or to a restricted audience) by the journal a short time before its publication in a regular issue. Unless the journal gives you permission, you cannot distribute or republish proofs of the paper, and you cannot call them a preprint.
A reference to a preprint in another paper may be acceptable, if the paper referred to is not yet published but a preprint is available. Once the paper is published, there is no reason to use a reference to its preprint.
Most certainly, you cannot list both the preprint and the published paper as separate entries in a reference list or list of publications.
You cannot place an unpublished MS on a web site or other media, and call it a preprint. It is just unpublished material.
A "preprint" such as in the Arxiv.org has the advantage that your authorship is fixed. Why?
Because if (part of) your paper appears later somewhere else, you can prove by priority of the submission date who is the author.
I am unfamiliar with the preprint that you have identified and wonder if the authorship is possibly in error.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Publisher