Neylon Cameron, Pattinson Damian, Bilder Geoffrey, Lin Jennifer
Centre for Culture and Technology, Curtin University, Perth, WA, 6102, Australia.
Research Square, Durham, NC, 27701, USA.
F1000Res. 2017 May 2;6:608. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.11408.1. eCollection 2017.
Increasingly, preprints are at the center of conversations across the research ecosystem. But disagreements remain about the role they play. Do they "count" for research assessment? Is it ok to post preprints in more than one place? In this paper, we argue that these discussions often conflate two separate issues, the history of the manuscript and the status granted it by different communities. In this paper, we propose a new model that distinguishes the characteristics of the object, its "state", from the subjective "standing" granted to it by different communities. This provides a way to discuss the difference in practices between communities, which will deliver more productive conversations and facilitate negotiation, as well as sharpening our focus on the role of different stakeholders on how to collectively improve the process of scholarly communications not only for preprints, but other forms of scholarly contributions.
预印本越来越成为整个研究生态系统讨论的核心。但对于它们所起的作用仍存在分歧。它们在研究评估中“算数”吗？在多个地方发布预印本可以吗？在本文中，我们认为这些讨论常常将两个不同的问题混为一谈，即手稿的历史以及不同群体赋予它的地位。在本文中，我们提出了一种新模型，该模型将对象的特征（即其“状态”）与不同群体赋予它的主观“地位”区分开来。这提供了一种讨论不同群体之间实践差异的方式，这将带来更有成效的对话并促进协商，同时使我们更加关注不同利益相关者在如何共同改进学术交流过程方面所起的作用，不仅是针对预印本，也包括其他形式的学术贡献。
