Our books






Become a Fan

« Proofing problems in academic publishing | Main | A case for medium-termism »

10/13/2022

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

rules_schmules

Follow up question: is it so bad to violate the publishing agreement? Do they really care if you upload the final version of the paper?

Nick Byrd

A few things:

1. I usually upload the accepted manuscript (i.e., whatever version of manuscript was under review when I received the acceptance). At that point, the journal has invested no copyediting into it and no copyright agreement has been made. In my view, the peer reviewers have a better copyright claim to it than the journal—and the peer reviewers clearly don't have a compelling copyright claim to it.

2. I consider it extremely important to state the status of the manuscript on the first page (ideally in a different font color, like red) so that it is clear whether or not has survived peer review and where—if accepted—the official version will be (Wingen et al., 2022).

3. If *I* find a substantial errors during proofing, I may annotate as much on my accepted manuscript and then re-upload it. (I have never had copyeditors note errors, but not because the errors do not exist.)

4. I often add the DOI to the uploaded manuscript once I get it so that people are still directed to the journal's version. This is good not only for the journal, but also for the author and reader because it directs readers to all of the bibliographic information that is necessary for a proper citation. As many people know, preprint downloads are associated with higher citation rates (Shuai et al., 2012).

5. I recommend uploading papers to platforms that have automatic notification systems for potential followers. While PhilPapers is one of these platforms, I find that few people outside of philosophy have ever heard of it. For this and other reasons, I use OSF and ResearchGate (but never Academia.edu)—I explain in these slides: byrdnick.com/archives/11393/personal-websites-academic-social-networks-how-to

I have never had a journal complain about any of this.

Shuai, X., Pepe, A., & Bollen, J. (2012). How the Scientific Community Reacts to Newly Submitted Preprints: Article Downloads, Twitter Mentions, and Citations. PLOS ONE, 7(11), e47523. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0047523

Wingen, T., Berkessel, J. B., & Dohle, S. (2022). Caution, Preprint! Brief Explanations Allow Nonscientists to Differentiate Between Preprints and Peer-Reviewed Journal Articles. Advances in Methods and Practices in Psychological Science, 5(1), 25152459211070560. https://doi.org/10.1177/25152459211070559

anon

One time I accidentally violated one of these policies. I think what happened was that the publisher complained to Researchgate, and Researchgate sent me an email saying that they'd taken the preprint down, and that they encouraged me to try not to violate policies.

Didn't seem like a big deal overall. My impression of the complaint and the Researchgate response was that they were all/mostly automated.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)

Job-market reporting thread

Current Job-Market Discussion Thread

Job ads crowdsourcing thread

Philosophers in Industry Directory

Categories