Inspired by a discussion elsewhere, I’d like start an open thread about the pros and cons of posting a paper to the arXiv before it’s accepted by a refereed journal. To get the convo going, here’s my summary of what came out of the previous discussion:
Pros to posting before acceptance:
- Problems and omissions get caught before publication.
- More people have a chance to “referee” and give feedback and the published paper might be better and richer as a result.
- Results get out to the community faster.
Cons to posting before acceptance:
- Wrong results get circulated and could possibly never be corrected or retracted.
- Could end up with several very different versions of same paper in circulation resulting in confusion.
- It’s possible, but not confirmed, that NASA HQ will not issue a press release about a paper that has been put on arXiv and later accepted by the journal. The reasoning is that since the the paper is in the public domain, the story is already out there. This essentially results in an official policy that precludes one from posting before acceptance. (Can anyone confirm this?)
- Some people will not referee a paper if they see that it’s already been posted to the arXiv.
I personally would like to post to the arXiv at the same time as submitting in order to get the additional scrutiny and feedback from my colleagues. However, maybe an alternative is to simply circulate the draft to the ~10 people who are most likely to have something to say?
What do you think? When do you think we should post papers to the arXiv and why?
(As a sidenote, I have noticed a near universal switch to writing “arXiv”, but saying “astro-ph”. Neither here nor there, just something I noticed that might confuse the young’ns.)