Talk:Preprint

message: 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)
thread_title: Untitled

message: 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.  72.57.79.40 01:10, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Trend against commercially published journals? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Why is discussion of Eprint servers here? 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Poor introduction paragraph 

message: 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)
replies: text: Agree about change to "Manuscript (publishing)" --Krauss (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

text: ... But here is also a merge discussion: agree that they are "similar encyclopedic contents", and must be merged (is wrong to "isolate" them). An intermediary solution is to add a "glue navigation bar" to both. --Krauss (talk) 10:34, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

text: It would probably be better to merge to Manuscript (publishing) as that is the larger topic. I would support that. Similar ground is covered in both articles and preprint exists in the context of manuscript publishing. Jonpatterns (talk) 23:25, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
replies: text:  Klbrain (talk) 17:41, 28 July 2017 (UTC)

text: * Wikipedia discussion is not a vote. We must evaluate specific reasoning presented by editors. Randykitty did not say that Preprint should be merged into Manuscript (publishing), but just opposed merging Manuscript format into Preprint (at that time, the proposal was merging "Manuscript format" into "Preprint"). Krauss simply said the two article should be merged, but did not say which one should be merged into which one. Jonpatterns's reason for merging Preprint into Manuscript (publishing) is just that the latter one is  the larger topic. This is not a good reason for this merger. And you unfortunately had not presented any reason for this merger before you merged these articles. Please discuss this issue and provide your reasoning first. Thanks. --Neo-Jay (talk) 15:36, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

text: There's clearly no consensus for this merge. As other have said, manuscripts and preprints are different things, although preprints often act as manuscripts. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:45, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge with [[Manuscript (publishing)]]? 

message: ? please discuss here... Hum... The problem is to prepare first the other place, and not reduce relevance or encyclopedic information in the "delete and merge" processes. --Krauss (talk) 10:18, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Oppose - 'list of repositories' article seems to cover a broader topic than preprint journals. Suggest moving to standalone article called 'list of preprint publishers'.Jonpatterns (talk) 23:50, 19 June 2016 (UTC)

text: Oppose - List of repositories is not specific to preprint servers; but agree with the 'list of preprint publishers' idea. --TheLeaper (talk) 18:54, 26 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge Preprint servers section to [[List of repositories]] 

message: It's important to note preprints - like academic and peer-reviewed journals are not all "scientific"; they may be scholarly but not scientific. In such cases most of the same issues apply. This page should be inclusive of that distinction, which is why I changed the intro Yyyikes (talk) 12:29, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scholarly and scientific  

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Preprint. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060315212206/http://www.yi.com/home/EysenbachGunther/scans/Eysenbach2000e_CurrOpImmunol_preprint_servers.pdf to http://yi.com/home/EysenbachGunther/scans/Eysenbach2000e_CurrOpImmunol_preprint_servers.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110830003949/http://www.crossref.org/02publishers/glossary.html to http://www.crossref.org/02publishers/glossary.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:43, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Would it be worth refactoring the Servers by field section into a table? Given these tables:
* List_of_repositories
* List_of_academic_journals_by_preprint_policy
Manual would probably be easiest for now, but eventually something automatically generated from wikidata by user:listeriabot. Any opinions? T.Shafee(Evo&Evo)talk 09:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Table?