NeuroDojo: Does biorXiv have different rules for different scientists?

ab1630's bookmarks 2018-06-28


"Last year, I submitted a preprint to biorXiv. I was underwhelmed by the experience. But I am a great believer in the saying, “Never try something once and say, ‘It did not work.’” (Sometimes attributed to Thomas Edison, I think.) I submitted another manuscript over the weekend which I thought might be a little more suited to preprinting, so after I submitted it to the journal, I went and uploaded it to biorXiv. It was the weekend, so it sat until Monday. Today, I received a reply. My preprint was rejected....

One of my criticisms of preprints is that they would make the Matthew Effect for publication worse. People who are in well-known labs at well-known institutions would receive the lion’s share of attention. People who are not would have just another expectation with minimal benefits.

But this feels even worse. This feels like there’s one set of rules for the rank and file scientists (“No commentaries!”) and another set of rules for scientists with name recognition (“Why yes, we’d love to have your commentary.”).

I like the idea of preprints, but this is leaving a sour taste in my mouth."


From feeds:

Open Access Tracking Project (OATP) » ab1630's bookmarks

Tags: oa.authors oa.open_science oa.stem oa.biorxiv oa.repositories.preprints oa.preprints oa.negative oa.attitudes oa.prestige oa.versions

Date tagged:

06/28/2018, 12:27

Date published:

06/28/2018, 08:28