What Are the Benefits of Publishing Preprints on arXiv?

  • Thread starter Thread starter ArmanCham
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Idea
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the benefits and implications of publishing preprints on arXiv, particularly in the context of academic publishing and peer review. Participants explore the motivations for using arXiv, the risks associated with publishing unverified work, and the relationship between preprints and formal journal publication.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest that publishing on arXiv allows researchers to share preliminary results with the community before formal peer review, which can take a significant amount of time.
  • Others argue that papers on arXiv are often seen as preliminary and may not be taken seriously if they remain unpublished for too long.
  • A participant questions the necessity of using arXiv, proposing that submitting directly to a journal might be more rational and effective.
  • Some participants note that publishing on arXiv can establish priority for an idea, but emphasize the risk of others publishing corrections if mistakes are made.
  • Concerns are raised about the potential for ideas to be stolen, with one participant expressing a desire for guarantees regarding their cosmology theory before publication.
  • Another participant challenges the notion that one can contribute to scientific literature without a solid understanding of the field, suggesting that this attitude is misguided.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the value of arXiv, with some supporting its use for establishing priority and sharing ideas, while others emphasize the importance of formal peer review and express skepticism about the effectiveness of preprints alone. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to publishing and the risks involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight various assumptions about the role of preprints in the academic publishing process, the perception of unverified work, and the potential consequences of publishing mistakes. The discussion reflects differing opinions on the necessity and effectiveness of using arXiv versus traditional journal submission.

ArmanCham
Messages
25
Reaction score
5
I want to write an article in arXiv. Let's suppose I made I mistake.Is there a chance that somebody can fix that mistake and publish it in scientific journal. And why people write their articles in arXiv? Is it a short way to peer review stage?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
ArmanCham said:
I want to write an article in arXiv. Let's suppose I made I mistake.Is there a chance that somebody can fix that mistake and publish it in scientific journal. And why people write their articles in arXiv? Is it a short way to peer review stage?
Publishing someone else's work as your own would be plagiarism and is the sort of misconduct that would cost any committing it their career. ArXiv is a pre-print server, so that you can get your results out to the community before it is published in a journal, as getting a paper through peer review can take months. Publishing on arXiv is not a requirement and many academics don't bother.
 
Papers on arXiv are generally understood to be preliminary versions that will probably change during the peer-review process. It's common for reviewers to suggest changes and clarifications. The definitive version of the paper is the one that actually gets published.

If a paper sits on the arXiv for a long time without ever being published in a journal, people probably tend to not take it seriously. They would suspect that something must be very wrong with it, if it didn't make it through the peer-review process.
 
Last edited:
"So, preprint process is not common and not necessery.The best way to publish an article is sending it to journal.If I send my paper to journal directly,that will be more rational.In Journal peer review process will start and then months later They will going to publih my paper."
Is this correct ?
 
Whether you need to publish in a peer-reviewed journal depends on your professional goals. Publishing on the arXiv is sufficient to establish priority. Of course, if you make a mistake and fail to establish the result you claim, someone else is allowed to publish the correct version and claim credit for the result. I think http://arxiv.org/abs/0907.2939 has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, but it is taken seriously. Another famous exception to the general rule that publication on the arXiv should be followed by publication in a peer-reviewed journal is this set of papers which appeared only on the arXiv are http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0211159, http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0303109 and http://arxiv.org/abs/math/0307245.
 
Last edited:
atyy said:
Of course, if you make a mistake and fail to establish the result you claim, someone else is allowed to publish the correct version and claim credit for the result.
I can't take that risk.I need to guarantee my idea.
My theory about cosmology.What should I do ? Its not necesseery to be arXiv it can be any preprint site.What's the best way to publish cosmology theory ? But when you thinking this way please keep in mind that I need to guarantee my idea.
Thanks
 
ArmanCham said:
I can't take that risk.I need to guarantee my idea.
My theory about cosmology.What should I do ? Its not necesseery to be arXiv it can be any preprint site.What's the best way to publish cosmology theory ? But when you thinking this way please keep in mind that I need to guarantee my idea.
Thanks

Then you are in the wrong parallel universe, because in this one, there is no absolute guarantee.

This is getting to be rather silly. If you think you have such a wonderful idea that someone might steal it, then send it into a peer-review journal! Otherwise, this is going nowhere fast.

In my experience in this forum, whenever we see someone posting something similar to this (and yes, you are NOT the first person to do this), it always a delusional sense of discovering something that didn't go anywhere.

Zz.
 
ZapperZ said:
and yes, you are NOT the first person to do this

Not even the first person to do this this week.

I am getting annoyed. The idea that one can contribute to the scientific literature without reading it themselves is a statement that the scientific community to listen to them, but that they don't have to listen to the scientific community in return. Not only is this misguided, it is insufferably rude and arrogant. Why does PF pander to them?

OP, you need to learn about cosmology. Then and only then you can think about teaching it to the experts.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: e.bar.goum
Thanks for your comments
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
14K
Replies
5
Views
17K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
7K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 61 ·
3
Replies
61
Views
14K