Whether we agree or not, trying to understand which arguments against preprinting exist in which epistemic communities is more constructive than telling everyone there are no such arguments. 4/4
Comments
Log in with your Bluesky account to leave a comment
I'm doing some research in this area at the moment. One argument I've heard (and agree with) is that for many authors in HSS fields, preprinting research would be the first time anyone else has read it. I think this points to the need for structured ways of receiving feedback prior to preprinting.
These structures already exist in some fields where preprints are common, while other fields with larger author groups seem happier to preprint, but for lone authors it can be quite a daunting process. I think this also means that 'preprint' is not a stable term but changes according to discipline.
I hope we can move toward a culture in which no one needs to feel uncomfortable to publish their work, with all its imperfections, on a preprint server and to publicly ask for feedback.
Indeed authors sometimes prefer not to preprint their work because they first would like to get feedback from colleagues, and authors then use journal peer review to try to get that feedback.
While this is understandable, I hope we can develop more effective ways of giving feedback to each other.
Yeah, I think we could have a big impact by designing spaces for feedback and discussion before a draft/preprint is made public (at least in HSS fields). This might also have the benefit of taking review processes back from journals and encouraging PRC approaches.
Comments
While this is understandable, I hope we can develop more effective ways of giving feedback to each other.
Q. when should you submit a preprint?
A. When you want to.
Agency should lie with authors. I agree we should also empower authors to feel preprints are useful.
https://blog.psyarxiv.com/2025/03/18/when-should-i-preprint-my-work/