The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersGene Expression Blog
ArXiv! ArXiv! ArXiv!
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Over the Nielsen Group blog, Time to jump into the arXiv?:

There is one other drawback to the arXiv that makes me, as a potential submitter, very nervous: being scooped.

A paper is “scooped” if someone else publishes the same (or very similar) concept before you get a chance to publish yours. But, wait, if it is on the arXiv, isn’t that documentation that I had the idea first? Well, yes, but… the arXiv isn’t commonly used in Biology yet, so it isn’t clear how important or how much priority will be given to authors who publish there before “traditional” peer review. This is especially concerning if the novelty of the paper is the idea (which is easy to reproduce with the same or different data) versus a method (which is more difficult to replicate). Maybe this isn’t a valid concern, because anonymous reviewers could, one might argue, just as easily “scoop” ideas from a manuscript they have reviewed. Furthermore, perhaps posting ideas/research early might facilitate more collaborations instead of competitions between research groups.

All said, I think that submitting to pre-print servers can be a very valuable tool for facilitating scientific discourse and advances. Will I start submitting there? We will have to wait and see.

It doesn’t matter to me at this point that people might have qualms. Once sufficient consciousness is raised and critical mass is achieved, then you’ll see a stampede. Some fields in biology may be late into the shift toward preprint distribution, but for the purposes of a lot of the stuff I cover on this weblog I doubt that will matter. When it comes to evolutionary biology that isn’t being funded by pharma or private foundations I don’t think there’s much holding people back aside from the worry about being scooped.

I don’t know much about academia and its intrigues personally, but I have heard of instances of reviewers squatting on a paper until someone else associated with the reviewer publishes (yes, people know who is reviewing in many cases, or suspects). This is a form of scooping, but it occurs in the shadows, and there’s always deniability. Who knows how we can quantify this sort of behavior? But it’s something to that we need to keep in mind when we’re worried about the pitfalls of open access and preprint distribution.

(Republished from Discover/GNXP by permission of author or representative)
 
• Category: Science • Tags: ArXiv 
Hide 3 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. There are good things to prepublication, but in my experience publishing in economics (with a strong prepublication tradition) and evolutionary biology, the cons outweigh the pros. So called working papers are in limbo, often times inflating publication lists artificially , sometimes lingering around for ages without ever making it into a proper journal. Sometimes they are cited and it is difficult to find them, or to track the zillion versions available somewhere online. They also mess up publication statistics, and I have heard at least once about a scoop. It’s a mess, and it promotes plagiarism (check the “admin note: text overlap” here: http://arxiv.org/abs/1206.6700).

    When I ask most economist why would they stick to the wrong equilibrium most would say that they do, in order to signal that you are “doing something”. This is necessary just because editorial processes in econ journals take ages. It’s true we need to figure out this publication thing anew, but arxiv is a sloppy temporary solution. I wouldn’t go there, unless strictly necessary.

  2. I think another drawback for regular preprint submissions of Biology articles is that there just isn’t a place where most papers would fit. The only topic on the ArXive is Quantitative Biology, and most biology papers, arguably, don’t fit into this topic. Are you aware of other preprint servers that are geared towards different fields of Biology?

    My personal preference is for the ArXive to expand, as a central repository for Science.

  3. When reviewers delay papers to scoop them, are they stealing the idea, or are they creating a marginal delay so that an existing paper gets published first?

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Razib Khan Comments via RSS