Preprints: continuing the conversation
Preprint platforms have been common in physics and mathematics but the preprint landscape is changing rapidly with new platforms emerging across various disciplines. This raises opportunities for discussion across communities and for all those involved: preprint platforms, journals, authors, funders and institutions.
COPE has facilitated this discussion previously via an earlier forum discussion and with respect to peer review. To continue the conversation, COPE has developed a new ‘Preprints’ discussion document that sets out some of the benefits and challenges associated with the posting of preprints.
We have received valuable feedback since posting the discussion document and we’d very much welcome your thoughts and feedback as we discuss the key issues further:
• What are the risks if a preprint with a potential impact on public health is interpreted as established evidence?
• Could subject-specific differences influence the adoption of preprint servers, particularly in clinical fields?
• If preprints have DOIs, does that qualify them as prior publications?
• What standards exist for correcting preprints? Who is responsible? Could changes link to final published articles?
• Could researchers post a preprint that has been rejected from a journal?
• Do preprint servers address publication bias?
• Do preprint servers increase or decrease transparency?
• Who is responsible for checking if appropriate permissions have been received for the data and figures in a preprint?
• What if there is an authorship dispute on a preprint?
This will be discussed at the start of the next COPE Forum on Monday 30 April 2018. Please do leave any comments below, whether or not you are planning on joining the meeting
Comments are reviewed and, on approval, added below.