The Case for Open Preprints in Biology

PLoS Biology

Volumn 11, Issue 5, 2013, Pages

  Desjardins Proulx, Philippe ^a,b   White, Ethan P ^c   Adamson, Joel J ^d   Ram, Karthik ^e   Poisot, Timothée ^a,b,f   Gravel, Dominique ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITÉ DU QUÉBEC À RIMOUSKI   (Canada)

^b MCGILL UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

^c UTAH STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA   (United States)

^e UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^f International Network for Next Generation Ecology   (Canada)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ACCESS TO INFORMATION; ARTICLE; BIOLOGY; CITATION ANALYSIS; CLIENT SERVER APPLICATION; EARLY CAREER SCIENTIST; FEEDBACK SYSTEM; HUMAN; INFORMATION DISSEMINATION; INTERNET; PEER REVIEW; PREPRINT; PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; SCIENTIST;

BIOLOGY; HUMANS; INTERNET; PUBLICATIONS; PUBLISHING;

EID: 84878278382     PISSN: 15449173     EISSN: 15457885     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.1001563     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Loman N (2012) All the cool kids are on arXiv and Haldane's Sieve.. why you should be too. Available: http://pathogenomics.bham.ac.uk/blog/2012/10/all-the-cool-kids-are-on-arxiv-and-haldanes-sieve-why-you-should-be-too/. Accessed 14 April 2013.
2. Ginsparg P, (2011) ArXiv at 20. Nature 476: 145-147.
3. Krugman P (2012) Open science and the econoblogosphere. Available: http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/17/open-science-and-the-econoblogosphere/. Accessed 14 April 2013.
4. Brown C (2012) A good way to publish - arXiv FTW. Available: http://ivory.idyll.org/blog/science-f-yeah.html. Accessed 14 April 2013.
5. Prakasan E, Sagar A, Kalyane V, Kumar A, Harnad S, (2005) Minimum impact and immediacy of citations to physics open archives of arXiv.org: Science Citation Index based reports. CogPrints pp. 4272.
6. Hochberg M, Chase J, Gotelli N, Hastings A, Naeem S, (2009) The tragedy of the reviewer commons. Ecol Lett 12: 2-4.
7. Aarssen L, Tregenza T, Budden A, Lortie C, Koricheva J, et al. (2008) Bang for your buck: rejection rates and impact factors in ecological journals. The Open Ecology Journal 1: 14-19.
8. Rohr J, Martin L, (2009) Reduce, reuse, recycle scientific reviews. Trends Ecol Evol 27: 192-193.
9. Hochberg M (2012) Good science depends on good peer-review. Available: https://sites.google.com/site/perspectivesinpublishing/our-mission. Accessed 14 April 2013.
10. Callaway E, (2012) Geneticists eye the potential of arXiv. Nature 488: 19.
11. Altman L, (1996) The Ingelfinger rule, embargoes, and journal peer review- part 1. The Lancet 347: 1382-1386.
12. Board NE, (2005) Nature respects preprint servers. Nature 434: 257.
13. Aruliah D, Brown C, Hong N, Davis M, Guy R, et al. (2012) Best practices for scientific computing. arXiv pp. 1210.0530.
14. Ram K, (2013) git can facilitate greater reproducibility and increased transparency in science. Source Code Biol Med 8: 7.
15. Lin T, (2012 January 16) Cracking open the scientific process. The New York Times.
16. Sanderson K (2008) Data on display. Nature. Available: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080915/full/455273a.html. Accessed 16 April 2013.
17. Fisher J, Ritchie E, Hanspach J, (2012) Academia's obsession with quantity. Trends Ecol Evol 27: 473-474.
18. Aarssen L, (2012) Are peer-review filters optimal for the progress of science in ecology and evolution? Ideas in Ecology and Evolution 5: 9-12.
19. Warner S (2012) Data for arXiv submissions by subject and year. Available: http://dx.doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.96966. Accessed 14 April 2013.