Preprint Article Version 1 NOT YET PEER-REVIEWED

Has the Time Come for Preprints in Chemistry? A Perspective onto a Meaningful Change

Version 1 : Received: 30 July 2017 / Approved: 31 July 2017 / Online: 31 July 2017 (16:05:17 CEST)

How to cite: Demma Carà, P.; Ciriminna, R.; Pagliaro, M. Has the Time Come for Preprints in Chemistry? A Perspective onto a Meaningful Change. Preprints 2017, 2017070095 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201707.0095.v1). Demma Carà, P.; Ciriminna, R.; Pagliaro, M. Has the Time Come for Preprints in Chemistry? A Perspective onto a Meaningful Change. Preprints 2017, 2017070095 (doi: 10.20944/preprints201707.0095.v1).

Abstract

Chemistry is the last natural science discipline to embrace prepublishing, namely the publication of non-peer reviewed scientific articles on the internet. After a brief insight into the origins and the purpose of prepublishing in science, we conduct a concrete analysis of the concrete situation, aiming at providing an answer to several questions. Why the chemistry community has been late in embracing prepublishing? Is this in relation with the slow acceptance of open access publishing by the same community? Will prepublishing become a common habit also for chemistry scholars?

Subject Areas

prepublishing; preprint; chemistry; open science

Readers' Comments and Ratings (2)

Comment 1
Received: 4 August 2017
Commenter: Ross Mounce
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Good piece. I agree it is time for chemistry to adopt preprints as part of a normal scholarly workflow.

One minor quibble, it is written:

"public research bodies (like arXiv or bioRxiv)"

As I understand it, arXiv is principally hosted by Cornell University Library, with financial support from many different organisations including the Simons Foundation. Cornell University is a private university, not a public research body.

Similarly, bioRxiv is principally hosted by Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (CSHL), which is a private, non-profit institution, not a public research body. I would therefore recommend you amend that sentence as it is not factually correct.
+ Respond to this comment
Response 1 to Comment 1
Received: 4 August 2017
Commenter: Mario Pagliaro
The commenter has declared there is no conflict of interests.
Comment: Dear Ross,
Thanks for this correction and your insight. Highly appreciated. We will amend the manuscript.
Merci,
Mario
Leave a public comment
Send a private comment to the author(s)
Rate this article
Views 0
Downloads 0
Comments 2
Metrics 0
Leave a public comment

×
Alerts
Notify me about updates to this article or when a peer-reviewed version is published.