Talk:Preprint

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Academic JournalsWikipedia:WikiProject Academic JournalsTemplate:WikiProject Academic JournalsAcademic Journal articles
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

Untitled

I tidied up a little-- added some titles.. the language and flow-toghterness still needs some work though. Vesiv 21:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Trend against commercially published journals?

In some branches of physics, arXiv has more importance as a medium of communication than standard journals: it is considered one of the driving forces behind the currently ongoing trend against commercially published scientific journals (see article for details about this controversy). Indeed, David Mermin in 1992 described Ginsparg's creation as potentially "string theory's greatest contribution to science"[citation needed].

To me this sounds not very neutral-point-of-view... Can anyone add some background or corroborating evidence? The implication of Mermin's quote also seems to be that string theory has made no other more important contributions to science. 72.57.79.40 01:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is discussion of Eprint servers here?

It seems unrelated to the topic (the importance of preprints to scientific publishing). Isn't the ePrint_archives category, and articles for each archive enough? Maybe an edit is in order. SETIGuy (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Poor introduction paragraph

The introduction fails to emphasize that the term refers only to papers that are in the process of being submitted to a journal, i.e. a paper not tried submitted to any journal would still fall into the current definition.

I suggest:

In the process of submitting a scientific paper to a scientific journal, such a paper undergoes peer review. A paper that has not yet finished the peer review phase is referred to as a preprint.

What is a manuscript? If it is the same as a scientific paper, then I think we should just call it scientific paper not to confuse.

Why is the preprint a "draft"? Do the journals change the papers when accepting them? Do they ask the submitter to do so? How much is changed, i.e. how significant differences can exist between a preprint and a postprint.

Velle (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I know, some preprints never get submitted, so the lead is correct in this sense. But "draft" is indeed a bit too general, as nobody would call a manuscript in progress that is on my desk being worked on a "preprint". It becomes a preprint the moment I circlate it, either by sending it to colleagues or by posting it in some archive (like arXiv). We generally call a paper that is under review by a journal a "manuscript" and then call it a "scientific paper" once it is published. The changes made during the reviewing/revising process can be quite extensive and modify data analyses, conclusions, add or delete large chunks of text, change figures, etc. Even after a paper is accepted, the better publishers will edit it for clarity and grammar and to comply with the "house style" of the particular journal. Hope this helps. --Crusio (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Manuscript (publishing)?

Please note that "manuscript" is a much larger concept than "preprint". A manuscript only becomes a preprint if it somehow gets distributed beyond the authors (or the occasional colleague whom they ask for advice). If I prepare a manuscript on my computer and then submit it to a publisher for review, there never was any preprint. BTW, I find the title "manuscript format" quite weird and think that should be moved to just "Manuscript (publishing)". --Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agree about change to "Manuscript (publishing)" --Krauss (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

... But here is also a merge discussion: agree that they are "similar encyclopedic contents", and must be merged (is wrong to "isolate" them). An intermediary solution is to add a "glue navigation bar" to both. --Krauss (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

It would probably be better to merge to Manuscript (publishing) as that is the larger topic. I would support that. Similar ground is covered in both articles and preprint exists in the context of manuscript publishing. Jonpatterns (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Done Klbrain (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I reverted the merger. As Randykitty put it, Manuscript (publishing) is a larger concept then preprint. So Manuscript (publishing) should not be merged into Preprint. And article Preprint is too long to be merged into the short article Manuscript (publishing). Such a merger will make section "Preprint" disproportionately long in article Manuscript (publishing). Preprint is apparently more popular than the concept of manuscript. Article Preprint has much longer content and many more inter-language links than Manuscript (publishing). It's appropriate to keep Preprint an independent article, and place Template:Main at section "Preprint" of Manuscript (publishing). --Neo-Jay (talk) 01:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Neo-Jay: You've reversed a merge with a clear consensus (unanimous agreement from 4 editors (Randykitty, Krauss, Jonpatterns and Klbrain [me] with discussion open over 2.5 years with no objections) to merge Preprint into Manuscript (publishing). I understand that you feel that the target is unbalanced, in which the correct method would be propose a split, rather than to reverse an action for which consensus has been gained. Klbrain (talk) 14:57, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Klbrain: Wikipedia discussion is not a vote. We must evaluate specific reasoning presented by editors. Randykitty did not say that Preprint should be merged into Manuscript (publishing), but just opposed merging Manuscript format into Preprint (at that time, the proposal was merging "Manuscript format" into "Preprint"). Krauss simply said the two article should be merged, but did not say which one should be merged into which one. Jonpatterns's reason for merging Preprint into Manuscript (publishing) is just that the latter one is the larger topic. This is not a good reason for this merger. And you unfortunately had not presented any reason for this merger before you merged these articles. Please discuss this issue and provide your reasoning first. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

There's clearly no consensus for this merge. As other have said, manuscripts and preprints are different things, although preprints often act as manuscripts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - either configuration (merged or separate articles) is acceptable. One problem with the article Manuscript (publishing) is that it doesn't explicitly explain the type of manuscript it is describing. It just talks about manuscripts, which is potentially confusing considering there is an article on manuscripts in general. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:46, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Neo-Jay:: It is true that WP decision are not votes, which even Jonpatterns specific 19 June 2016 comments, plus WP:SILENCE for more than one year was sufficient for a merge. However, I'm very happy to see the utility of a merge discussed from this point, even though doing so as part of a split debate would have been more appropriate. Klbrain (talk) 16:39, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I feel that manuscripts and preprints are referring to two quite different documents. As already noted, manuscripts will sometimes become a preprint but not always. A preprint is a document that has been publicly disseminated. Preprints also have specific meaning to the scientific community as vehicle for distributing a scientific publication. Manuscripts generically do not carry these same connotations. Devinberg (talk) 03:47, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Preprint servers section to List of repositories

? please discuss here... Hum... The problem is to prepare first the other place, and not reduce relevance or encyclopedic information in the "delete and merge" processes. --Krauss (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - 'list of repositories' article seems to cover a broader topic than preprint journals. Suggest moving to standalone article called 'list of preprint publishers'.Jonpatterns (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - List of repositories is not specific to preprint servers; but agree with the 'list of preprint publishers' idea. --TheLeaper (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scholarly and scientific

It's important to note preprints - like academic and peer-reviewed journals are not all "scientific"; they may be scholarly but not scientific. In such cases most of the same issues apply. This page should be inclusive of that distinction, which is why I changed the intro Yyyikes (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Preprint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Table?

Would it be worth refactoring the Servers by field section into a table? Given these tables:

Manual would probably be easiest for now, but eventually something automatically generated from wikidata by user:listeriabot. Any opinions? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)^talk 09:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]