On the origin of nonequivalent states: how we can talk about preprints

Abstract

Increasingly, preprints are at the center of conversations across the research ecosystem. But disagreements remain about the role they play. Do they "count" for research assessment? Is it ok to post preprints in more than one place? In this paper, we argue that these discussions often conflate two separate issues, the history of the manuscript and the status granted it by different communities. In this paper, we propose a new model that distinguishes the characteristics of the object, its "state", from the subjective "standing" granted to it by different communities. This provides a way to discuss the difference in practices between communities, which will deliver more productive conversations and facilitate negotiation on how to collectively improve the process of scholarly communications not only for preprints but other forms of scholarly contributions.

A conceptual peer review model for arXiv and other preprint databases

“…To avoid possible misunderstandings, it is necessary to make it clear that this paper discusses subject‐based preprints and non‐reviewed original papers submitted to subject‐based preprints and not repositories of articles published in journals. The most typical example is famous preprint database arXiv (Neylon, Pattinson, Bilder, & Lin, ).…”

Preprints: What is their role in medical journals?

“…A preprint is an early draft of a research article that has not been through the peer review process; usually, preprints are published by researchers on openly accessible platforms, either before or during peer review. However, the definition of preprints has not been objectively established, and their standing consequently remains unclear 1 .…”