IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/gam/jsusta/v12y2020i8p3360-d348196.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

On the Potential of Preprints in Geochemistry: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly

Author

Listed:
  • Olivier Pourret

    (UniLaSalle, AGHYLE, 60000 Beauvais, France)

  • Dasapta Erwin Irawan

    (Faculty of Earth Sciences and Technology, Institut Teknologi Bandung, Bandung 40132, Indonesia)

  • Jonathan P. Tennant

    (Institute for Globally Distributed Open Research Education, Bali 84213, Indonesia
    Deceased during peer-review.)

Abstract

In recent years, the pace of the dissemination of scientific information has increased. In this context, the possibility and value of sharing open access (OA) online manuscripts in their preprint form seem to be growing in many scientific fields. More and more platforms are especially dedicated to free preprint publishing. They are published, non-peer-reviewed scholarly papers that typically precede publication in a peer-reviewed journal. They have been a part of science since at least the 1960s. In 1990, Tim Berners-Lee created the World Wide Web to help researchers share knowledge easily. A few months later, in August 1991, as a centralized web-based network, arXiv was created. arXiv is arguably the most influential preprint platform and has supported the fields of physics, mathematics and computer science for over 30 years. Since, preprint platforms have become popular in many disciplines (e.g., bioRxiv for biological sciences) due to the increasing drive towards OA publishing, and can be publisher- or community-driven, profit or not for profit, and based on proprietary or free and open source software. A range of discipline-specific or cross-domain platforms now exist, with exponential growth these last five years. While preprints as a whole still represent only a small proportion of scholarly publishing, a strong community of early adopters is already beginning to experiment with such value-enhancing tools in many more disciplines than before. The two main options for geochemists are EarthArXiv and ESSOAr. A “one size fits all” model for preprints would never work across the entire scientific community. The geochemistry community needs to develop and sustain their own model.

Suggested Citation

  • Olivier Pourret & Dasapta Erwin Irawan & Jonathan P. Tennant, 2020. "On the Potential of Preprints in Geochemistry: The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 12(8), pages 1-6, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:8:p:3360-:d:348196
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/8/3360/pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://www.mdpi.com/2071-1050/12/8/3360/
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Matthew Cobb, 2017. "The prehistory of biology preprints: A forgotten experiment from the 1960s," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-12, November.
    2. Sarvenaz Sarabipour & Humberto J Debat & Edward Emmott & Steven J Burgess & Benjamin Schwessinger & Zach Hensel, 2019. "On the value of preprints: An early career researcher perspective," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(2), pages 1-12, February.
    3. Jonathan P. Tennant & Harry Crane & Tom Crick & Jacinto Davila & Asura Enkhbayar & Johanna Havemann & Bianca Kramer & Ryan Martin & Paola Masuzzo & Andy Nobes & Curt Rice & Bárbara Rivera-López & Tony, 2019. "Ten Hot Topics around Scholarly Publishing," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-24, May.
    4. Smriti Mallapaty, 2020. "Popular preprint servers face closure because of money troubles," Nature, Nature, vol. 578(7795), pages 349-349, February.
    5. Jonathan Tennant & Laurent Gatto & Corina Logan, 2018. "Preprints help journalism, not hinder it," Nature, Nature, vol. 560(7720), pages 553-553, August.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Tom Narock & Evan B. Goldstein, 2019. "Quantifying the Growth of Preprint Services Hosted by the Center for Open Science," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(2), pages 1-14, June.
    2. Marcel Knöchelmann, 2019. "Open Science in the Humanities, or: Open Humanities?," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(4), pages 1-17, November.
    3. Vincent Raoult, 2020. "How Many Papers Should Scientists Be Reviewing? An Analysis Using Verified Peer Review Reports," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(1), pages 1-9, January.
    4. Klaus Wohlrabe & Constantin Bürgi, 2021. "What is the benefit from publishing a working paper in a journal in terms of citations? Evidence from economics," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 126(6), pages 4701-4714, June.
    5. Oswaldo Terán & Jacinto Dávila, 2023. "Simulating and Contrasting the Game of Open Access in Diverse Cultural Contexts: A Social Simulation Model," Publications, MDPI, vol. 11(3), pages 1-25, August.
    6. Serdar Türkeli & Martine Schophuizen, 2019. "Decomposing the Complexity of Value: Integration of Digital Transformation of Education with Circular Economy Transition," Social Sciences, MDPI, vol. 8(8), pages 1-22, August.
    7. Ivan Kodvanj & Jan Homolak & Davor Virag & Vladimir Trkulja, 2022. "Publishing of COVID-19 preprints in peer-reviewed journals, preprinting trends, public discussion and quality issues," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(3), pages 1339-1352, March.
    8. Xu, Fang & Ou, Guiyan & Ma, Tingcan & Wang, Xianwen, 2021. "The consistency of impact of preprints and their journal publications," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    9. Doyle, Cathal, 2020. "How Can I Share My Work? A Review of the Open Access Policies of IS Journals," OSF Preprints xr8mv, Center for Open Science.
    10. Dasapta Erwin Irawan & Juneman Abraham & Rizqy Amelia Zein & Ilham Akhsanu Ridlo & Eric Kunto Aribowo, 2021. "Open Access in Indonesia," Development and Change, International Institute of Social Studies, vol. 52(3), pages 651-660, May.
    11. Christopher Allen & David M A Mehler, 2019. "Open science challenges, benefits and tips in early career and beyond," PLOS Biology, Public Library of Science, vol. 17(5), pages 1-14, May.
    12. Constantin Bürgi & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2021. "Working Paper, Journalartikel und Zitierungen: Eine empirische Analyse für die Top-5-Zeitschriften in der Volkswirtschaftslehre," ifo Schnelldienst, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, vol. 74(02), pages 51-54, February.
    13. Jaime A. Teixeira da Silva & Aceil Al-Khatib & Panagiotis Tsigaris, 2020. "Spam emails in academia: issues and costs," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(2), pages 1171-1188, February.
    14. Dan Tian & Xin Liu & Jiang Li, 2024. "Accelerated acceptance time for preprint submissions: a comparative analysis based on PubMed," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 3787-3807, July.
    15. Akbaritabar, Aliakbar & Stephen, Dimity & Squazzoni, Flaminio, 2022. "A study of referencing changes in preprint-publication pairs across multiple fields," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 16(2).
    16. Alexandra Baumann & Klaus Wohlrabe, 2020. "Where have all the working papers gone? Evidence from four major economics working paper series," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2433-2441, September.
    17. Raminta Pranckutė, 2021. "Web of Science (WoS) and Scopus: The Titans of Bibliographic Information in Today’s Academic World," Publications, MDPI, vol. 9(1), pages 1-59, March.
    18. Mario Malički & IJsbrand Jan Aalbersberg & Lex Bouter & Gerben ter Riet, 2019. "Journals’ instructions to authors: A cross-sectional study across scientific disciplines," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(9), pages 1-16, September.
    19. J. Israel Martínez-López & Samantha Barrón-González & Alejandro Martínez López, 2019. "Which Are the Tools Available for Scholars? A Review of Assisting Software for Authors during Peer Reviewing Process," Publications, MDPI, vol. 7(3), pages 1-28, September.
    20. Carlos Yure B. Oliveira & Cicero Diogo L. Oliveira & Marius N. Müller & Elizabeth P. Santos & Danielli M. M. Dantas & Alfredo O. Gálvez, 2020. "A Scientometric Overview of Global Dinoflagellate Research," Publications, MDPI, vol. 8(4), pages 1-18, November.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gam:jsusta:v:12:y:2020:i:8:p:3360-:d:348196. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: MDPI Indexing Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.mdpi.com .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.