Mailing List Archive

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: [tlug] Journals, Authors and 'Free Peer Review'

On Wednesday, September 26, 2018 01:55 AM, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
Raymond Wan writes:

  > It does open a can of worms that few people want to address.
  >   For example, if I submit a manuscript to a journal, am I
  > obligated to cite earlier work that was submitted to ArXiv,
  > knowing that it hasn't yet been through the process of peer
  > review?  I am?  If so, then should I cite someone who said
  > they did a preliminary study but reported it on their
  > homepage or their blog?  Where does one draw the line?

I don't see the problem.  If you mention the results in your work, you
cite it, even if it's the writing on the ass of Marilyn in the nude on
the patent leather jacket of the skinny little boy from Cleveland
Ohio. @ 2:00

It may not be a huge problem, but it seems some details still need to be ironed out.

Of course, with issues such as this, we will never get 100% agreement or 100% disagreement. It'll reach some threshold and then things will shift. And those that are still in the "disagree" side will have to come on board.

But, it'll probably happen gradually and at a discipline at a time.

  > If I'm reviewing for aforementioned journal and I came
  > across this earlier work in ArXiv, do I point out or
  > criticize the author for not citing this work in ArXiv?
Point it out if the quality justifies it.  "Criticize" depends on how
hard you had to work to find it.  If it's any good, Googling the
current author's keywords on Scholar better not bring it up on the
first page of results, is all I'll say.

Oh... If you're alluding to plagiarism or some other suspicious behaviour, then yes, you're correct.

I guess what I mean is if someone searched their digital libraries of choice for their discipline and didn't turn up anything. i.e., ACM and IEEE's digital libraries. Is that enough?

Of course, if one has focussed into a particular field of research, then you should know many of the people in your field. And you might meet many of them at the annual conference. But surprises do sometimes come -- a piece of research from someone who no one else in your field knows.

  > I was doing a literature search for something I'm working on and
  > found something in ArXiv that was posted about 2 years ago but
  > never got published I cite it?
If you mention its results.  Really, how hard is this?  The only
people who have a problem are those writing a *comprehensive*
literature review.  There, I guess you mention and cite unless it's
really garbage.

Mentioning them isn't the hard part. Trusting it is. Or, more precisely, trusting it enough to cite it is.

Maybe ArXiv allows it to reach a wide audience but just having people tweet or "like" it doesn't give me any confidence in it. (Though, in the case of this article, no one tweeted about it.)

  > I'm a small potato and my workplace gives credit to publication in
  > journals and not that's what I'll do.  ;-(
Don't they give any weight to citations?  Exposing your work to more
people can't hurt in terms of getting your name known to reviewers,
too.  I don't see the problem with the strategy Benjamin suggests (as
long as the journals in question don't refuse submissions of work
directly descended from ArXiv publications).

They do give weight to citations but the weight for something like ArXiv will be a 0. [Disclaimer: No, I haven't asked.]

I'm not against ArXiv. But I certainly wouldn't [yet] lump it together with peer-reviewed publications. In fact, I probably would put it together with non-peer-reviewed publications, including those manuscripts that we might put in a CV or year-end report as "in preparation". Some disciplines have paper or short paper submissions that haven't gone through any (in my book) is the same thing.

That's regardless of whether it has been formatted or written well.

I mean if a CV or a year-end report was divided into "well-formatted works" vs "not well-formatted works" then yes, an ArXiv submission might reasonably considered for the former category. But they usually don't do this.

For what it's worth, there are journals that accept work that is "sound" but doesn't necessarily have to be timely. i.e., if the study was conducted well then reviewers are not asked to take timeliness of the work into consideration.


Home | Main Index | Thread Index

Home Page Mailing List Linux and Japan TLUG Members Links