My attempts to raise this concern have been received poorly. And yet my experience is that preprints are sometimes/often ignored.
-
-
Replying to @bradpwyble @o_guest
I totally agree with concern. But I think in era of google, "preprints are ignored" is a hard conclusion to reach (and probably erroneous).
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
the strongest conclusion to me is "posting a preprint lacks obvious and immediate benefits to the authors in the form of feedback."
3 replies 1 retweet 7 likes -
But isn't this only a problem if you see pre-prints as an alternative, not compliment, to traditional peer review via journals..?
1 reply 0 retweets 2 likes -
agreed. I think I'm out for the day on this topic, tweeps; gotta go grantsmyship.
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
A compliment implies you can use it to get more PR, right? But if most ppl get no feedback/comments then it's a false promise?
3 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
The fact is that feedback responses are distributed, and this is the reality that should be communicated by preprint 'advocates' et al :)
1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
OK, to be extra clear: that was my point with my opening tweet.
2 replies 0 retweets 2 likes -
Replying to @o_guest
I... did not get that from your opening tweet! Thanks for clarifying!
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
Replying to @ctitusbrown
Given all the pros and cons of preprints being discussed the least discussed one is that they work better for "better" labs.
2 replies 2 retweets 2 likes
At least this is true for what I see on twitter when they are discussed, hence why I tweeted what I did.
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.