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

[Raymond Wan <rwan.kyoto@example.com>]

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.  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dhj7rthZM1s @ 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 finally...do 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 ArXiv...so 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 review...it (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.

Ray