But isn't this only a problem if you see pre-prints as an alternative, not compliment, to traditional peer review via journals..?
-
-
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 -
Replying to @o_guest @ctitusbrown
Isn't this also true for peer reviewed papers though? Publishing works better for "better" labs.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @stephenfloor @ctitusbrown
Yes, but preprints are described by many as a panacea, by many as an antidote to journals, and by many as a complement to trad PR without
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
mentioning the inherent imbalances. I want to discuss them.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ Retweeted Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ
As I said to others...https://twitter.com/o_guest/status/889499160193490944 …
Olivia Guest | Ολίβια Γκεστ added,
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.