暂无分享，去创建一个
This commentary originally appeared in the EMBO Journal. It benefited significantly from editorial supervision, and is reposted here with permission (and minor updates). The introduction provides some overall context. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 FAQ 1: Why did you create arXiv if journals already existed? Has it developed as you had expected? . .3 FAQ 2: How many papers are posted on arXiv per year? How many times are arXiv papers viewed? . . 4 FAQ 3: What are the benefits for a scientist to post their work on arXiv? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 FAQ 4: Many biologists worry that they will get “scooped” if they place their work on a preprint server. How common is it for someone to see a study posted on arXiv and then try to rush their own paper to a journal to claim credit? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 FAQ 5: Large-group effort experimental physics (e.g., in particle physics) and theoretical physics are very different from biological research. Do small experimental physics groups also use arXiv? . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 FAQ 6: In competitive areas, is there a race to post preprints, resulting in a decrease in the quality of communicating scientific work? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 FAQ 7: Do grant committees, prize committees, and university promotion committees consider arXiv preprints in their decision-making processes? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 FAQ 8: Without a formal peer-review process, has “pseudo-scientific” work slipped into arXiv and has this proven to be a problem? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 FAQ 9: What happens when incorrect work gets posted on preprints? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 FAQ 10: Do all physicists and mathematicians use arXiv? If not, why not? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 FAQ 11: Are there physics or mathematics journals that will not accept a manuscript for review if it has been previously posted as a preprint? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 FAQ 12: What are the biggest issues or tensions between arXiv and the journals? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 FAQ 13: When do scientists post on arXiv? Prior to, at the same time or after journal peer review? . . 10 FAQ 14: How common is it for physicists and mathematicians to submit work to a traditional journal after posting on arXiv? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 FAQ 15: Does arXiv stimulate dialogue that helps correct or improve work before journal publication?10 FAQ 16: Why does arXiv not have a commentary section on scientific work? How do scientists exchange ideas in response to a preprint? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 FAQ 17: Can you explain the “version” system on arXiv and why you use it? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 FAQ 18: How is arXiv funded and governed? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 FAQ 19: What is the relationship of arXiv to blogs and social media? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 FAQ 20: What are the key ingredients that you feel have been important for the success of arXiv? . . . 13 FAQ 21: What are the key messages from the recent arXiv user survey? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 1 DOI:10.15252/embj.201695531, 19 Oct 2016. The original title “Déjà Vu all over again” was changed to accommodate European readers unfamiliar with the Yogi Berra allusion.
[1] A. Hyman,et al. Priority of discovery in the life sciences , 2016, eLife.
[2] Zeeya Merali. ArXiv rejections lead to spat over screening process , 2016, Nature.
[3] Ronald D. Vale. Accelerating Scientific Publication in Biology , 2015 .
[4] Paul Ginsparg,et al. Positional effects on citation and readership in arXiv , 2009 .
[5] Paul Ginsparg,et al. Patterns of text reuse in a scientific corpus , 2014, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.
[6] Paul Ginsparg,et al. A note concerning primary source knowledge , 2016, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..