Overview of project
Data highlights that around 70% of preprints are eventually published in a journal. However, persistent concerns remain around the 30% that are never published. Although there are a range of acceptable reasons as to why a preprint may not be published, a myth and perception remains that these are poor quality. We aim to investigate the non-published preprints and provide evidence on their quality and comparison to published preprints.
Collaborators
- Our current collaborators will be listed here as the project progresses
Funding
Any funding tied to this project will be listed here
Background
There is a growing body of evidence comparing preprints to their peer reviewed, published, versions. This evidence consistently demonstrates that preprints are comparable to their published versions, undergoing limited changes. However, around 30% of preprints never go on to be published in a journal. A common concern is that these preprints are poor quality and that they have not been published for this reason. However, anecdotally we know that there are a range of reasons that authors have for not pursuing journal publication; for example negative data may not be worth the effort, preprinting may be the final destination, or a single dataset may not fit a larger story but still have relevance to the community.
This project aims to investigate the non-published preprints compared to those that are published, in addition to assessing the quality of the non-published preprints. We will also survey authors of non-published preprints to gather evidence on the reasons behind not pursuing publication. This data will be highly beneficial in preprint advocacy and dispelling concerns around non-published preprints.
Rippling Ideas 