Open access: Difference between revisions

Revision as of 20:17, 17 February 2025

Revision as of 21:50, 17 February 2025

Line 117:

However, preprints, in fact, protect against scooping.<ref name="Sarabipour 2019b">{{Cite journal |last1=Sarabipour |first1=Sarvenaz |last2=Debat |first2=Humberto J. |last3=Emmott |first3=Edward |last4=Burgess |first4=Steven J. |last5=Schwessinger |first5=Benjamin |last6=Hensel |first6=Zach |year=2019 |title=On the Value of Preprints: An Early Career Researcher Perspective |journal=PLOS Biology |volume=17 |issue=2 |pages=e3000151 |doi=10.1371/journal.pbio.3000151 |pmc=6400415 |pmid=30789895 |doi-access=free }}</ref> Considering the differences between traditional peer-review based publishing models and deposition of an article on a preprint server, "scooping" is less likely for manuscripts first submitted as preprints. In a traditional publishing scenario, the time from manuscript submission to acceptance and to final publication can range from a few weeks to years, and go through several rounds of revision and resubmission before final publication.<ref name="Powell 2016">{{Cite journal |last=Powell |first=Kendall |year=2016 |title=Does It Take Too Long to Publish Research? |journal=Nature |volume=530 |issue=7589 |pages=148–151 |bibcode=2016Natur.530..148P |doi=10.1038/530148a |pmid=26863966 |doi-access=free |s2cid=1013588}}</ref> During this time, the same work will have been extensively discussed with external collaborators, presented at conferences, and been read by editors and reviewers in related areas of research. Yet, there is no official open record of that process (e.g., peer reviewers are normally anonymous, reports remain largely unpublished), and if an identical or very similar paper were to be published while the original was still under review, it would be impossible to establish provenance.{{cn|date=March 2024}}

Preprints provide a time-stamp at the time of publication, which helps to establish the "priority of discovery" for scientific claims.<ref>{{Cite journal |last=Vale |first=Ronald D |last2=Hyman |first2=Anthony A |date=2016-06-16 |title=Priority of discovery in the life sciences |url=https://elifesciences.org/articles/16931 |journal=eLife |volume=5 |pages=e16931 |doi=10.7554/eLife.16931 |issn=2050-084X |pmc=PMC49112124911212 |pmid=27310529}}</ref> This means that a preprint can act as proof of provenance for research ideas, data, code, models, and results.<ref name="Crick 2017">{{Cite journal |last1=Crick |first1=Tom |last2=Hall |first2=Benjamin A. |last3=Ishtiaq |first3=Samin |year=2017 |title=Reproducibility in Research: Systems, Infrastructure, Culture |journal=Journal of Open Research Software |volume=5 |issue=1 |page=32 |doi=10.5334/jors.73 |doi-access=free|arxiv=1503.02388 }}</ref> The fact that the majority of preprints come with a form of permanent identifier, usually a [[digital object identifier]] (DOI), also makes them easy to cite and track. Thus, if one were to be "scooped" without adequate acknowledgement, this would be a case of academic misconduct and plagiarism, and could be pursued as such.

There is no evidence that "scooping" of research via preprints exists, not even in communities that have broadly adopted the use of the [[arXiv]] server for sharing preprints since 1991. If the unlikely case of scooping emerges as the growth of the preprint system continues, it can be dealt with as academic malpractice. [[ASAPbio]] includes a series of hypothetical scooping scenarios as part of its preprint FAQ, finding that the overall benefits of using preprints vastly outweigh any potential issues around scooping.<ref group="note">{{Cite web |title=ASAPbio FAQ |url=http://asapbio.org/preprint-info/preprint-faq#qe-faq-923 |url-status=live |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831011402/https://asapbio.org/preprint-info/preprint-faq#qe-faq-923 |archive-date=31 August 2020 |access-date=28 August 2019}}.</ref> Indeed, the benefits of preprints, especially for early-career researchers, seem to outweigh any perceived risk: rapid sharing of academic research, open access without author-facing charges, establishing priority of discoveries, receiving wider feedback in parallel with or before peer review, and facilitating wider collaborations.<ref name="Sarabipour 2019b" />