Economics also is very preprint heavy with papers staying "unpublished" (by a journal) for years and getting tons of cites as preprints before they are even published.
-
-
-
Replying to @chbergma
Maybe I'm having trouble with reading comprehension!
Do you mean "version before peer review" is the static version with no updates after a round of review?1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
Some say if it's changed it is not a preprint any more, yes. (And some journals have corresponding restrictions or embargoes)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @chbergma
I tend to update my preprints after I get rejected (so not publication) and have made changes.
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
Oh that would still be included under my reading. So maybe "before review at 'last' journal"?
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
... which is uncomfortably accommodating to journals instead of good science (i.e. sharing the best version of the paper).
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @chbergma
I feel like we compromise so much in peer review that it's become worthless in most cases.
Which is not to say PR has no value, but the current way we do it seems to be suboptimal.1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @o_guest
I do like to think it improves clarity, in some cases at least...
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
But in principle it would be best to have a place where we can share the version we like most, which might or might not be the final version.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
I agree. TBF you get to share all versions on any preprint server I have seen since they allow you to have many versions for the same manuscript, even with different titles!
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.