Welcome to the new version of European Tribune. It's just a new layout, so everything should work as before - please report bugs here.

On the culture of non-peer-reviewed research dissemination

by Migeru Thu Jul 24th, 2014 at 04:36:38 AM EST

"why do people submit drafts that have already been posted on Arxiv to peer-reviewed journals then?"
This may be a cultural issue and it helps to know where the arXiv comes from.

Originally posted in the Voice of the Researchers forum


In the golden age of particle physics (1940s to 1970s) progress both theoretical and experimental was so fast that people just couldn't wait for months for new research to be published in a journal in order for important discoveries to be disseminated. As a result, a culture of "preprints" developed, whereby researchers would widely circulate draft papers not only among their immediate colleagues, but worldwide. I recall visiting CERN in 1993 and seeing a large panel on the wall dedicated to displaying preprints, both local and from foreign institutes.

It is not a coincidence that Tim Berners Lee developed HTML while working at CERN: his first webpage (local only to CERN as there were no commercial browsers!) was intended to provide links to his own research. Again, a means to preprint dissemination.

With the advent of the World Wide Web, the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the USA came up with the idea of an "e-prints archive" and the arXiv was born. The original URL was xxx.lanl.gov and it later migrated to Cornell University when growth made maintaining the system unsustainable for LANL. The first papers on the theoretical high-energy physics repository hep-th date from August 1991.

For some time the high-energy physics community was the only one to use the arXiv, but the practice soon spread to the rest of physics and the arXiv diversified into thematic subarchives as we know it today. However, here's where cultural differences started to become apparent. Astrophysicists baulked at using the arXiv and at the concept of pre-prints itself. How could you go to a repository of non-peer-reviewed papers?

Other fields have been faster or slower in adopting the preprint culture, mathematics being one of the most eager adopters also because of the cross-pollination with theoretical physics. Mathematical finance and economics have embraced the model and they have their own preprint archive, SSRN (Social Science Research Network). For economics and finance this is also natural for two reasons: one is the existing culture of "working papers" published by non-academic economic policy institutions (and, lately, academic departments); the other is the time-sensitive nature of much quantitative economic/financial research. If you wait 3 months your paper on the money market or business cycle analysis will be obsolete.

It is because of the sheer weight of researcher expectations (and because researchers themselves are part of journal editorial boards) that physics and mathematics journals accept arXiv references for submission of papers, and do not demand that pre-prints be removed after publication of a paper. Other disciplines, not so much.

It's all about culture. Maybe I should have been an anthropologist.

Display:
... the original question that provoked this diary: You get KPI'ed on publications, not on pre-prints.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Thu Jul 24th, 2014 at 04:38:42 PM EST
European Tribune - On the culture of non-peer-reviewed research dissemination
It's all about culture. Maybe I should have been an anthropologist

nah - anthropology isn't REAL science. However a sociology of knowledge perspective would be useful...

Index of Frank's Diaries

by Frank Schnittger (mail Frankschnittger at hot male dotty communists) on Fri Jul 25th, 2014 at 01:55:43 AM EST
It's not as if peer review and citation counting don't create huge problems of their own.
by ThatBritGuy (thatbritguy (at) googlemail.com) on Sat Jul 26th, 2014 at 06:08:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Citation counting is the triumph of bean counters over scientists in research manegement.

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Sat Jul 26th, 2014 at 07:12:30 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Not really sure if this is a joke or not...
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Tue Aug 5th, 2014 at 07:41:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]
(Frank's comment.)
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Tue Aug 5th, 2014 at 07:42:10 AM EST
[ Parent ]
There's some interesting issues at work here.

I gave up on research into the NHS as a field of work because the pre-print culture wasn't developed enough - and changes were happening far more quickly than the journal turn-around time.

(All the worse because journal turn around in these smaller subjects is longer - best part of a year last time I checked...)

It made the work pointless, with no chance of influencing anything.

On the other hand, we've seen with Reinhart and Rogoff that the culture of pre-prints in economics allows massive propaganda exercises to be undertaken. People take pre-prints seriously, despite the lack of review.

(Of course as pre-prints rise, then the journals have no incentive to get any faster, either...)

by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Tue Aug 5th, 2014 at 07:48:20 AM EST
It's not fair to blame the pre-print system for Reinhart and Rogoff. Judging by the quality of the statistics work in econ papers I've read, they would have had a better than even chance of getting through formal peer review.

- Jake

Friends come and go. Enemies accumulate.

by JakeS (JangoSierra 'at' gmail 'dot' com) on Tue Aug 5th, 2014 at 03:15:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Fair point - econ is broken, but I don't think preprint is helping...
by Metatone (metatone [a|t] gmail (dot) com) on Tue Aug 5th, 2014 at 06:46:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]


Display:
Go to: [ European Tribune Homepage : Top of page : Top of comments ]