I think there is a dangerous misnomer using the term pre-print, vs post-print. Pre-print is an unreviewed un-published work, only submitted elsewhere for consideration. It has no more reference value than a blog, and maybe should be re-termed as such. Any results are therefore to be taken with a grain of salt, as with many conference papers which lack any significant review process. While rapid sharing of one’s work may have interest, serious peer-review acceptance is rarely a question of typo or minor errors, more typically involving revisions to analysis regularly requiring (significant) changes to the manuscript, or even identification of protocol errors hindering publication of the work due to invalid results. I will not enter into the discussion of cost and compensation, as this varies greatly between journals and organisations. However, I would remain on the side of the need for serious peer-review. -- Brian FG Katz, Research Director, CNRS Groupe Lutheries - Acoustique – Musique Sorbonne Université, CNRS, UMR 7190, Institut Jean Le Rond ∂'Alembert http://www.dalembert.upmc.fr/home/katz On Tue, 23 May 2023 at 12:15, Matt Flax <flatmax@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
|