Recent searches
Search options
Here's a template for replying to review requests, if you like:
> If the article is available as a preprint, I will happily publicly review it (on PREReview) and then transfer my review to [your system].
>
> It doesn't look like the article is available as a preprint yet.
>
> If there is a credible reason why this article cannot be shared as a pre-print, let me know, and I will reconsider.
@da5nsy Interesting approach… but some authors do not wish to publish as a preprint work that they consider unfinished because it hasn’t gone through peer-review / is not the final version, and also they don’t want to have multiple versions of their article pop-up when you look it up online.
If it’s a choice from the author themselves to not have a preprint, would you review the submitted paper?
I'd go further than @AndrewReid's reply (https://neuromatch.social/@AndrewReid/110743035569990627)
and say that submitting unfinished work for peer review is borderline unethical under our current system: if the contributions of a peer reviewer takes a work from "unfinished" to "finished", then they're an author and should be treated/rewarded as such
And I would argue that it should be standard practice to update preprints following any changes that occur during peer review, such that all copies available online are identical (save for journal aesthetics).
I don't think that this is the norm yet[1], but I think we should be striving for that.
[1]: Let's see though! https://social.coop/@da5nsy/110744265597232802
> If it’s a choice from the author themselves to not have a preprint, would you review the submitted paper?
Fundamentally, it depends on the rationale behind that choice (see "credible reason").
_I must say though - I'm struggling to think of reasons that meet my threshold for "credible"._
@da5nsy that is another debate but I would actually disagree with forced update of your preprints. You might want them to be different from the published journal version for different reasons - for example the journal had silly text or figure limits and you prefer your preprint version because it detailed some points better. Here again I think it should be the choice of the authors :)