I firmly believe, based on decades of experience in scientific publishing as an author and an editor, these these preprint servers do more damage than good to science. One of them maintains: "bioRxiv can save authors time in submitting papers to journals or peer review services by transmitting their manuscript files and metadata directly from bioRxiv. This means authors do not have to spend time re-loading manuscript files and re-entering author information at the journal or peer review service website." I can't believe what I read. If these preprint/pre peer-review "papers" are freely accessible, they will be cited even if the final, decently published paper was quite different from the preprint. Often for example the statistical analyses will change after peer review and that will probably affect the results in one way or the other. No wonder people don't believe in science...
See this discussion about preprints which will never be published:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/When_a_preprint_becomes_the_final_paper
See also these releated discussions:
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is-it-always-advisable-to-upload-a-Preprint
https://www.researchgate.net/post/What-are-the-disadvantages-of-preprints-upload
https://www.researchgate.net/post/When_is_the_appropriate_moment_to_upload_a_preprint
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Is_Preprint_of_research_articles_safe
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Whether_PREPRINT_Article_can_be_considered_as_Scholarly_Article
https://www.researchgate.net/post/The-preprint-practice-an-enemy-of-the-double-blind-review-practice
https://www.researchgate.net/post/Peer_review_and_preprints
Dear Dr. Johannes Enroth
I am in full agreement with what you have said. I have undergone similar experience(s) as an author. Dr. Wolfgang R. Dick has endorsed similarly expressed views by reiterating and posting views of members on RG.
Most of the times the role of preprint servers is misunderstood by new contributors/entrants. Some Journals accept articles, research material despite the material having put in the public domain via preprints. Some journals don't. Such dual standards are the root cause of the problem indicated by you.
Other misunderstood expression is peer review. As per publishing industry, it is a review by the reviewers appointed by the Journal. That is not what budding research scholars/'Newtons' think. Therefore, to improve the situation, corrective steps need to be initiated by the Publishing Industry.
Regards
Thank you Atul Kumar Kuthiala, I was sure this topic had been discussed here but just wanted to poor my brain out...if that makwes any sense.
Hello Dr Johannes Enroth
I totally agree with your points. I avoid pre-print servers and find that their promises are difficult to believe. I still strive to always get my work published in so-called "real" journals.
I also agree with the points that were mentioned by Atul Kumar Kuthiala that much of the problem is by misunderstandings. This is especially so by younger researchers who believe the promises given by those sites.
Yes I agree with this opinion. In some cases, the editor of the journal reject the manuscript because of high similarity with the preprint document.
@Zainal A. Muchlisin that's what I would do in the capacity of editor in chief - reject because it has already been sort of published.
Preprints were prompted during the difficult times of Covid pandemics. I believe this could be less important in the present. As those kind of publications doesn't have credibility and will certainly compromise the discussion of real scientific matters in many fields. Also, we should consider that many journals act like a corporations, gaining all the profits from the base of this pyramid, the scientists.
- Badges
- Science topic