3 ms·

I 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

I 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.