Preprints: Ethical hazard or academic liberation?

KOME

Volumn 5, Issue 2, 2017, Pages 73-80

  Teixeira da Silva, Jaime A ^a  

^a NONE   (Japan)

Author keywords

ArXiv; ASAPbio; BioRxiv; Center for open science; F1000Research; Gates open research; Peer review; Preprint server; Quality control; Wellcome open research

Indexed keywords

EID: 85040710242     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20637330     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.17646/kome.2017.26     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. Al-Khatib, A., Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017). Threats to the survival of the author-pays-journal to publish model. Publishing Research Quarterly 33(1): 64-70.
2. Annesley, T., Scott, M. (2017). Biomedical journals and preprint services: friends or foes? Clinical Chemistry 63(2): 453-458.
3. Berg, J. M., Bhalla, N., Bourne, P. E., Chalfie, M., Drubin, D. G., Fraser, J. S., Greider, C. W., Hendricks, M., Jones, C., Kiley, R., King, S., Kirschner, M. W., Krumholz, H. M., Lehmann, R., Leptin, M., Pulverer, B., Rosenzweig, B., Spiro, J. E., Stebbins, M., Strasser, C., Swaminathan, S., Turner, P., Vale, R. D., VijayRaghavan, K., Wolberger, C. (2016). Preprints for the life sciences. Science 352 (6288), 899-901.
4. Bolshete, P. (2018). Analysis of thirteen predatory publishers: a trap for eager-to-publish researchers. Current Medical Research and Opinion 34(1): 157-162.
5. Callaway, E. (2017). Funders call for bio-preprints hub. Nature 542(7641): 283-284.
6. Desjardins-Proulx, P., White, E. P., Adamson, J. J., Ram, K., Poisot, T., Gravel, D. (2013). The case for open preprints in biology. PLoS Biology 11(5): e1001563.
7. Eve, M. P., Priego, E. (2017). Who is actually harmed by predatory publishers? tripleC 15(2): 755-770
8. Kaiser, J. (2017). The preprint dilemma. Science 357(6358): 1344-1349.
9. Loew, L. M. (2016). Peer review and bioRxiv. Biophysical Journal 111, E01-E02.
10. Maslove, D. M. (2017). Medical preprints–a debate worth having. Journal of the American Medical Association E1-E2 (in press).
11. Relman, A. S. (1981). The Ingelfinger Rule. New England Journal of Medicine 305: 824-826.
12. Shen, C., Björk, B-C. (2015). ‘Predatory’ OA: a longitudinal study of article volumes and market characteristics. BMC Medicine 13: 230.
13. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017a). Fake peer reviews, fake identities, fake accounts, fake data: beware! AME Medical Journal 2: 28.
14. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017b). Preprints should not be cited. Current Science 113(6): 1026-1027.
15. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017c). The preprint wars. AME Medical Journal 2: 74.
16. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017d). The ethical and academic implications of the Jeffrey Beall (www.scholarlyoa.com) blog shutdown. Science and Engineering Ethics (in press)
17. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017e). Caution with the continued use of Jeffrey Beall’s “predatory” OA publishing lists. AME Medical Journal 2: 97.
18. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017f). The Journal Impact Factor (JIF): science publishing’s miscalculating metric. Academic Questions 30: 433-441.
19. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017g). The preprint debate: what are the issues? Medical Journal Armed Forces India (in press)
20. Teixeira da Silva, J. A. (2017h). Issues with the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Journal of Advocacy, Research and Education 4(2): 54-67.
21. Teixeira da Silva, J. A., Memon, A. R. (2017). CiteScore: a cite for sore eyes, or a valuable, transparent metric? Scientometrics 111(1): 553-556.