|Sheldon T (2018) Preprints could promote confusion and distortion. Nature 559:445.|
Abstract: Thousands of papers are submitted every month to the platforms arXiv and bioRxiv, which make manuscripts available before they have been peer reviewed and accepted by a journal. Scientists applaud preprints because they enable researchers to claim priority and make their findings available more quickly, unshackled from sluggish and tyrannical journals.
This might make sense within the scientific community, but as someone who has worked for years with researchers and journalists to ensure responsible coverage of science in the media, I fear that this method of publication holds substantial risks for the broader community — risks that are not being given proper consideration by the champions of preprint. Weak work that hasn’t been reviewed could get overblown in the media. Conversely, better work could be ignored.
• Keywords: Preprints • Bioblast editor: Gnaiger E
- » Fraser J, Polka J (2018) Together scientists and journalists can spot poor preprints. Nature 560:553. - »Bioblast link«
- » Sarabipour S (2018) Preprints are good for science and good for the public. Nature 560:553. - »Bioblast link«
- » Tennant J, Gatto L, Logan C (2018) Preprints help journalism, not hinder it. Nature 560:553. - »Bioblast link«