3 ms·
In that article they make distinction among articles that were previously submited to arxiv and articles that were first published and then just added by the au
by woliveirajr 9y ago
In that article they make distinction among articles that were previously submited to arxiv and articles that were first published and then just added by the author to arxiv. The great majority was articles being pre-printed first and then being peer-reviewed.
- SubiculumCode 9y agoI should have checked first. Good point, at least in regards to the article's subject matter. I would expect even less difference between the after peer review pre-print and the article. A question about arxiv. Can the preprint be updated by the authors? I can imagine wanting to update a preprint after getting input from reviewers. Second question. Is this research then suggesting that peer-review does little?
- Vinnl 9y ago> Can the preprint be updated by the authors Yes, it can, altough it's not consistently done in every discipline, so unless you are familiar with a discipline, you can't rely on the research being most up-to-date. > Is this research then suggesting that peer-review does little? I think it's important to make a distinction between the formal peer review process, and the concept of peer review. There's a lot of remarks to be made about the former. In some disciplines, however, it's common to share research on arXiv, collect feedback from readers there, and submit a version to a journal that incorporates that feedback - it's not a stretch to call that peer review as well. But to somewhat answer the question: practices between disciplines on arXiv vary too much to draw conclusions about the formal peer review process based on this research, in my opinion.