Dear All
Many relevant research manuscripts are archived in archival sites such as https://arxiv.org/ before their appearance as a journal article.
If an archived paper is relevant to your topic (and if it meets your inclusion criteria), should it be cited and included in the analysis?
I have seen several latest papers in ArXive.org, should I include them in the analysis? What impact (positive/negative) will it have on the quality and acceptance of our manuscript?
Comments and suggestions please.
Yes, if the arXiv paper is relevant of course it should be cited. It could also be a good idea to check using Google Scholar etc. whether it is also published; in this case you should probably refer to the published version but please remember to add the arXiv number at the end of the reference as this could be important e.g. for establishing priority which is usually determined according to the date of arXiv submission rather than the journal publication.
Dear Colleague
- Can they be cited? Yes. However, always refer to the author guidelines of the journal you are submitting to, just to make sure they do not have a olicy against that.
- Can they be included in a secondary analysis? Yes. Cochrane always does that. Just write beside them "archived on .....".
- Would that affect the quality of the manuscript? No.
Kind Regards
I agree with the preceding response. The disadvantage is they have not been through the peer review process.
Hi Irfan I have seen very Deep Discussions about the citing of Preprints some of the Scholars undervalued the Preprints as they were not Peer Reviewed. Again i would discuss that Valuable Journals with good IF Impact Factor and High Indexed might have policies about Peer Reviewed Articles and Preprints. You should check the policies of the Journal as some Journals might refuse to Publish the Article. Good Luck for the Publication
Yes, if the arXiv paper is relevant of course it should be cited. It could also be a good idea to check using Google Scholar etc. whether it is also published; in this case you should probably refer to the published version but please remember to add the arXiv number at the end of the reference as this could be important e.g. for establishing priority which is usually determined according to the date of arXiv submission rather than the journal publication.
Ahsan Siddiqui
If some scholars undervalue the preprints, that can only mean they haven't read them. Then I'm prone to undervalue those scholars, and consequently not to be concerned by their opinion.
Almost all mathematicians post their work to arXiv and almost all notable researchers do cite arxiv papers. If you find an arXiv article sound and supports your results, certainly you should cite it.
There are many reasons to post and/or cite an arXiv article. Authors post to arXiv to claim priority, to get feedbak from peers, and to widen readership and accordingly get more citations. Moreover, you get the most recent research trends from arXiv, since the review process is getting insanely slower and slower.
No need to mention that a number of masterpieces are on arXiv. For example, Grigori Perelman's proof of the Poincaré conjecture.
It is a matter of ethic (and even of law in some serious cases) always to cite papers you have used in your research, otherwise it is plagiarism. The form, the medium, the peer reviewing are not criteria. If for example it is a review article and you don't want to cite a paper for some reason, then drop the topic too, independently from the journal policy. It is not clear from the question whether it is research, teaching, or only literature analysis. In the latter case it is up to you to make the decision, and to state precisely your inclusion criteria.
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Philology
- Classical Philology
- Manuscripts