Editing Preprint (section)

==Role==
===Academic practices===
{{See also|List of academic journals by preprint policy}}Publication of manuscripts in a peer-reviewed journal often takes weeks, months or even years from the time of initial submission, owing to the time required by editors and reviewers to evaluate and critique manuscripts, and the time required by authors to address critiques. The need to quickly circulate current results within a scholarly community has led researchers to distribute documents known as preprints, which are manuscripts that have yet to undergo [[peer review]]. The immediate distribution of preprints allows authors to receive early [[Corrective feedback|feedback]] from their peers, which may be helpful in revising and preparing articles for submission.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://blogs.plos.org/absolutely-maybe/2016/05/01/breaking-down-pros-and-cons-of-preprints-in-biomedicine/|title=Breaking Down Pros and Cons of Preprints in Biomedicine |date=2016-05-01|work=Absolutely Maybe|access-date=2018-01-12|language=en-US}}</ref> Preprint are also used to demonstrate the precedence of the discoveries and a way to protect the intellectual property (a prompt availability of the discovery can be used to block patenting or discourage competing parties).

Most publishers allow work to be published to preprint servers before submission. A minority of publishers decide on a case-by-case basis or interpret the [[Ingelfinger rule|Ingelfinger Rule]] to disqualify from submission.<ref>{{Cite news|url = https://www.economist.com/news/science-and-technology/21694990-old-fashioned-ways-reporting-new-discoveries-are-holding-back-medical-research|title = Taking the online medicine|newspaper = The Economist|issn = 0013-0613|access-date=2016-03-23}}</ref> Yet, many journals prohibit or discourage the use of preprints in the references as they are not considered as credible sources.

Some journal-independent review services ([[Peerage of Science]], [[Peer Community In]], Review Commons, [[eLife]] Preprint Review) offer [[peer review]] on preprints. These peer-reviews are either a first step before publication in a journal (Peerage of Science, Review Commons, [[eLife]] Preprint Review) or result in a formal editorial decision (Peer Community In) without precluding submission in journals.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://asapbio.org/comparing-review-services|title=Comparing journal-independent review services |publisher=ASAPbio|website=asapbio.org|date=24 July 2020 |access-date=2021-01-22}}</ref>

===Stages of printing===
While a preprint is an article that has not yet undergone peer review, a [[postprint]] is an article which has been peer reviewed in preparation for publication in a journal. Both the preprint and postprint may differ from the final published version of an article. Preprints and postprints together are referred to as e-prints or [[eprint]]s.<ref>"[http://www.eprints.org/openaccess/self-faq/#What-is-Eprint Self-archiving FAQ]". EPrints.</ref>

The word [[reprint]] refers to hard copies of papers that have already been published; reprints can be produced by the journal publisher, but can also be generated from digital versions (for example, from an electronic database of peer-reviewed journals), or from eprints [[self-archiving|self-archived]] by their authors in their institutional repositories.

===Tenure and promotion===
In academia, preprints are not likely to be weighed heavily when a scholar is evaluated for tenure or promotion, unless the preprint becomes the basis for a peer-reviewed publication.<ref>{{Cite journal|last1=Callaway|first1=Ewen|last2=Powell|first2=Kendall|date=2016-02-18|title=Biologists urged to hug a preprint|journal=Nature|volume=530|issue=7590|pages=265|doi=10.1038/530265a|pmid=26887471|bibcode=2016Natur.530..265C|doi-access=free}}</ref>

Some important results in mathematics have been published only on the preprint server [[arXiv]].<ref name="auto1">{{citation|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/07/01/AR2010070106247.html|title=Russian mathematician wins $1 million prize, but he appears to be happy with $0|newspaper=Washington Post|date=July 2, 2010|first=Marc|last=Kaufman}}</ref><ref>Nadejda Lobastova and Michael Hirst, [http://www.smh.com.au/news/world/maths-genius-living-in-poverty/2006/08/20/1156012411120.html "Maths genius living in poverty"], Sydney Morning Herald, August 21, 2006</ref> After nearly a century of effort by mathematicians, [[Grigori Perelman]] published a series of preprint papers on the [[arXiv]] between 2002 and 2003, in which he presented a proof of the [[Poincaré conjecture]].<ref name="perelman200211">{{cite arXiv|author=Perelman, Grisha|title=The entropy formula for the Ricci flow and its geometric applications|eprint = math.DG/0211159|date=November 11, 2002}}</ref><ref name="perelman200303">{{cite arXiv|author=Perelman, Grisha|title=Ricci flow with surgery on three-manifolds|eprint=math.DG/0303109 | date = 10 March 2003}}</ref><ref name="perelman200307">{{cite arXiv|author=Perelman, Grisha|title=Finite extinction time for the solutions to the Ricci flow on certain three-manifolds|eprint= math.DG/0307245|date=July 17, 2003}}</ref> He was offered both the $1 million [[Millennium Prize Problems|Millennium Prize]] and the [[Fields Medal]] for the result, but he declined both prizes.<ref name="auto1"/>

=== Advantages of preprints ===
The advantages of preprints can be summarized as: prompt dissemination of outcomes, contributes to free flow of information, increase chances of early feedback and comments, increase number of citations, chances of academic collaborations, make authors enthusiastic, may reduce [[predatory publishing]], increases transparency, may publish negative outcomes and controversies, may receive [[Digital object identifier|DOI]], link to [[ORCID]], [[plagiarism]] check, chance to receive [[Grant (money)|grants]] and awards, promotion of young researchers, early credit, good place for [[hypothesis]], and early detection of science misconduct.<ref name="auto"/>

=== Disadvantages of preprints ===
The disadvantages of preprints could be summarized as: lack of [[Peer review|peer-review]], absence of quality (in controversy), concerns about premature data, media coverage not properly presenting the inherent uncertainty of preprints,<ref name="BesançonPeiffer-Smadja2020">{{cite journal|last1=Besançon|first1=Lonni|last2=Peiffer-Smadja|first2=Nathan|last3=Segalas|first3=Corentin|last4=Jiang|first4=Haiting|last5=Masuzzo|first5=Paola|last6=Smout|first6=Cooper|last7=Billy|first7=Eric|last8=Deforet|first8=Maxime|last9=Leyrat|first9=Clémence|title=Open Science Saves Lives: Lessons from the COVID-19 Pandemic|journal=BMC Medical Research Methodology|year=2020|volume=21|issue=1|page=117|doi=10.1186/s12874-021-01304-y|pmid=34090351|pmc=8179078 |doi-access=free }}</ref> risk of double citation (by publishing a peer-reviewed article, the preprint may also be cited), lack of ethical and statistical guidelines, lack of respect for [[Committee on Publication Ethics|COPE]] or [[ICMJE recommendations|ICMJE]] guidelines, breach of [[intellectual property]] regulations in some countries, possible harm to health in certain cases, information overload, breach of [[Ingelfinger rule]] (a strategy conducted to discourage dissemination of research reports before they are published in the journal), rush to post low-quality research.<ref name="auto"/>