ASAPbio receives many inquiries regarding preprints and “scooping.” As jobs and grants become very competitive, there is increasing worry among biologists about scooping, ie that their ideas/results will be published by others and that they will not receive proper attribution. Here we try to break down the issue of scooping into specific scenarios and points…
Since arXiv has a long track record and experience, we asked the following question to Paul Ginsparg, physicist and founder of the preprint server arXiv: “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…
This happens to every scientist at some point. We look at PubMed or examine the latest table of contents in Journal X and find a similar study. Often, there is no bad intention, just different labs in a similar field converging on the same topic. Naturally, this scenario can be very dispiriting to the student…
This is an ideal and not infrequent situation where two groups become aware of similar work and wish to “co-disclose” or “co-publish” together to obtain a similar time stamp. Preprints: This situation is very easy to navigate with preprints, since the disclosure is under the control of the scientists. The groups simply have to agree…
Let us imagine a scenario in which two groups with similar discoveries backed by similar quality of data submit to two separate journals at the same time. For one group, the journal sends out the work for review, the reviews are favorable, and the work is published quickly. However, the other group is less fortunate…
Many physicists, mathematicians and computer scientists use arXiv and as Paul Ginsparg articulates in his comments about scooping, it is not plausible to claim that “I never saw it.” Preprints are undergoing a transition in some fields of biology where the numbers are still small and many scientists do not know about them. This situation…
There is no indication that this type of behavior has emerged in the physics, mathematics, and computer science communities as a result of wide-spread use of preprints. Scientists do not engage in quick posting of low quality work because they are wary of developing a bad reputation in the community. Furthermore, if the work is…
Another group posts a preprint on a similar work to my own. I decide that I do not want to submit a preprint but rather go straight for a journal publication. Will the chances of my publication be jeopardized by the appearance of this earlier preprint? We have discussed this scenario with several journals and…
Scientific meetings are increasingly becoming dominated by published or soon to be published data (e.g. manuscripts that are accepted). Many scientists are wary of sharing earlier stage work, even if they have a manuscript in hand, since they have no idea how long it might take to get published. Meeting presentations and posters are generally…
Naturally, the answer is yes. But the same is true for a journal publication. Once work is public, the entire scientific community can make use of the new knowledge; this is how the scientific enterprise advances as whole. That is why preprints are valuable for science, society, and the public and funding agencies who pay…