I’ve just published my first preprint. If you’re not familiar with preprints, they are final versions of a paper manuscript that are posted online before they have been peer reviewed.
So why did I just publish one?
I’ve just submitted my second ARC DECRA application. My DECRA project builds on my current work, where I’m developing new ways of analysing ecosystem services across systems that have different properties. I led a paper on the conceptual framework behind these methods at the start of my current project; but after 8 submissions at 7 journals and 1.5 years of peer review it is still unpublished (new personal record!). Most of our reviews were positive, even though the paper was ultimately rejected. We took all comments on board before next submission – each submission was revised and revised again (put your Table 1 in, put your Table 1 out, put your Table 1 in and shake it all about!). But no matter what we did, we just couldn’t appease the reviewers and editors. Conceptual papers are notoriously hard to publish because of reviewer/editor personal biases.
My preprint paper describes some key concepts that I want to develop in my future work; I had hoped it would be published before I submitted my DECRA application. So after the most recent rejection, I okayed with my co-authors and posted it as a preprint. I did it because I needed to be able to cite my current work in my application, to show that I have already developed the conceptual framework underlying the research questions I’m asking.
I think this is the key niche for preprints. Early career researchers (ECRs) probably benefit from them more than established researchers. ECRs need funding and support to establish themselves, and the only way to get that funding is to prove your ability to do the research. Peer review can take a long time, not because of quality of research, but because of opinions and biases of reviewers and editors. This isn’t a new thing. But, in this era of acceleration, there can be huge consequences when an ECR moves into new research territory. As a researcher, you are identified on your publication record, so if your previous work doesn’t exactly match your proposed work, you can be judged as lacking the skills needed to do the project.
This is why I decided to post my paper as a preprint. However, there is a big difference between conceptual and data papers. One of the most serious problems with preprints is their availability to everyone, which allows some media to promote ‘evidence’ from data papers that have not been peer reviewed.
Holy crap my pre-print is on the front page of the Times?!? I know I should probably be a bit more professional about this but I’m actually shaking. I need to emphasise though: ITS A PREPRINT. It’s not published in a peer-reviewed journal yet! https://t.co/C5IVgtUrHJ
— Thomas Richardson (@Richie_Research) February 25, 2019
I was comfortable posting my preprint because it was a conceptual paper, with no data, on using network analysis to analyse ecosystem services; hardly front page news material.
I’m still not sold on preprints and I won’t be preprinting all my papers. But I can see the benefits of preprints in some contexts and I’ll encourage my students and postdocs to post preprints when they need to. In the meantime, let’s take peer review a bit more seriously – it’s a community service, not a gatekeeping exercise.
© Manu Saunders 2019