From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Academic Journals (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Academic Journals, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Academic Journals on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
See WikiProject Academic Journals' writing guide for tips on how to improve this article.

I tidied up a little-- added some titles.. the language and flow-toghterness still needs some work though. Vesiv 21:19, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Trend against commercially published journals?[edit]

In some branches of physics, arXiv has more importance as a medium of communication than standard journals: it is considered one of the driving forces behind the currently ongoing trend against commercially published scientific journals (see article for details about this controversy). Indeed, David Mermin in 1992 described Ginsparg's creation as potentially "string theory's greatest contribution to science"[citation needed].

To me this sounds not very neutral-point-of-view... Can anyone add some background or corroborating evidence? The implication of Mermin's quote also seems to be that string theory has made no other more important contributions to science. 01:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Why is discussion of Eprint servers here?[edit]

It seems unrelated to the topic (the importance of preprints to scientific publishing). Isn't the ePrint_archives category, and articles for each archive enough? Maybe an edit is in order. SETIGuy (talk) 22:33, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Poor introduction paragraph[edit]

The introduction fails to emphasize that the term refers only to papers that are in the process of being submitted to a journal, i.e. a paper not tried submitted to any journal would still fall into the current definition.

I suggest:

In the process of submitting a scientific paper to a scientific journal, such a paper undergoes peer review. A paper that has not yet finished the peer review phase is referred to as a preprint.

What is a manuscript? If it is the same as a scientific paper, then I think we should just call it scientific paper not to confuse.

Why is the preprint a "draft"? Do the journals change the papers when accepting them? Do they ask the submitter to do so? How much is changed, i.e. how significant differences can exist between a preprint and a postprint.

Velle (talk) 10:30, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

  • As far as I know, some preprints never get submitted, so the lead is correct in this sense. But "draft" is indeed a bit too general, as nobody would call a manuscript in progress that is on my desk being worked on a "preprint". It becomes a preprint the moment I circlate it, either by sending it to colleagues or by posting it in some archive (like arXiv). We generally call a paper that is under review by a journal a "manuscript" and then call it a "scientific paper" once it is published. The changes made during the reviewing/revising process can be quite extensive and modify data analyses, conclusions, add or delete large chunks of text, change figures, etc. Even after a paper is accepted, the better publishers will edit it for clarity and grammar and to comply with the "house style" of the particular journal. Hope this helps. --Crusio (talk) 12:31, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion for Manuscript format[edit]

Please note that "manuscript" is a much larger concept than "preprint". A manuscript only becomes a preprint if it somehow gets distributed beyond the authors (or the occasional colleague whom they ask for advice). If I prepare a manuscript on my computer and then submit it to a publisher for review, there never was any preprint. BTW, I find the title "manuscript format" quite weird and think that should be moved to just "Manuscript (publishing)". --Randykitty (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2014 (UTC)