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 and then try to rush their own paper to a journal to claim credit and try to receive more recognition for the work?”
It can’t happen, since arXiv postings are accepted as date-stamped priority claims.
Eventually I came to understand that biologists do not use “scoop” in the standard journalistic sense, where it means an exclusive news item of exceptional importance or surprise, with no unethical connotation. Instead “scooping” in the context of biology research appears to mean using information or ideas without proper attribution. This is dishonest, of course, regardless of the source. Similarly, when biologists are described as “competitive”, it is apparently connotes some form of unscrupulous behavior. I’d long responded that physicists are as or more competitive, in the sense of being eager to be first to discover some new phenomenon and get credit for it, but now clarify that competitive ordinarily stops well short of cheating or stealing. On the other hand, while fear of such unethical behavior may seem widespread in biological circles, it’s not at all clear how prevalent the behavior is in reality, or for that matter would be if preprints were widely available.
Whether or not the concerns are exaggerated, though, the long-term solution could still be systematic posting of preprints, and consensus of the community that it counts for staking intellectual precedence. There might be some intermediate pilfering phase, but a few high profile cases of admonishment and censure would quickly establish a proper ethos.
Once preprints achieve higher number, visibility, and easier searchability within a subcommunity, no one can plausibly claim they “did not see it”. Vale and Hyman have recently discussed the principles for establishing “priority of discovery”, disentangling disclosure from validation, and examine how journal publication dates can obscure priority.
Biology partitions into subcommunities with sizes ranging from many hundreds into the thousands of researchers, just as in physics and other research areas, so the self-policing mechanisms can be just as effective.
As for concerns that research in biology is fundamentally different from other fields, there are many ideas or calculations in theoretical physics that are much easier to reproduce and claim than would be an experiment in biology. And various tabletop experiments in condensed matter physics might be roughly comparable to those in biology in that regard.
But the experience has been that unexpected or rapid progress leads to increased preprint usage within communities, precisely to stake priority claims, and that increased usage remains the norm afterwards.