New APPS

11 responses to “Top Ten Reasons philosophers of science should post their papers to PhilSci-Archive”

1. 

   HK Andersen

   June 5, 2014

   They also have very cool download statistics, so you can see often papers are downloaded. My most-read work, by an order of magnitude, is from a presentation that was not published but just posted there. Not something that would get any airtime, except for philsci-archive.

   LikeLike

   Reply
2. 

   David Wallace

   June 5, 2014

   I agree – enthusiastically – with most of this, but here’s one caveat. I don’t think work-in-progress is really suitable for philsci-archive – anything on the archive is fair game for being cited and criticised in print (cf the archive FAQ: “While submitted work may be preliminary, it is expected that material posted forms a complete paper with all sections present, the language carefully edited and all footnotes, references, figures and other supporting material in place.”)
   In philosophy of physics, the most common practice (and my own) is to submit a paper on the archive at about the same time that you send it to a journal for refereeing. (You can then later upload a corrected version that allows for, e.g., referee comments.) This is the standard practice on arxiv.org, and I assume philosophers of physics’ practice has been borrowed from there. Similarly, I assume the high visibility of arxiv.org in physics is one reason philosophy of physics dominates the philsci-archive – we’re just used to that way of working. (Moving into philosophy from physics, it actually took me several years to wake up to the fact that in philosophy, some people wouldn’t see my paper until it was actually in a print journal!)

   LikeLike

   Reply
3. 

   Mohan Matthen

   June 5, 2014

   Hi Roberta, A concern was recently expressed on Philosopher’s Cocoon about the dangers of not being properly cited when you post unpublished papers on the Internet. I am not sure that I fully understand this concern; but as somebody who is involved with a preprint archive you might have some thoughts.

   LikeLike

   Reply
4. 

   Roberta L. Millstein

   June 5, 2014

   Good point — that could be reason #11!

   LikeLike

   Reply
5. 

   Roberta L. Millstein

   June 5, 2014

   I see what you’re saying, and in truth, it’s the way that I myself use the Archive. (Or more often, I wait until the paper has been accepted).
   My comment about works-in-progress was in response to this item from the FAQ: “The archive is intended to supplement or replace an older mechanism for circulation of new work. An author used to prepare multiple copies of a new manuscript and mail it to scholars for their information and for response. Greater circulation can be achieved by posting on the archive at no cost to the author.”
   So, either there is a bit of a conflict between the FAQ item you mention and the FAQ item I mention, or, I am mistaken in reading the above as meaning “works-in-progress.” I can try to get clarification on that.
   I think you’re right about physics’ pre-print culture vs other sciences’ pre-print culture, although lately I have seen more use of pre-prints in biology, so perhaps philosophy of biology will follow suit (I can’t speak for the use of pre-prints in other sciences).

   LikeLike

   Reply
6. 

   Roberta L. Millstein

   June 5, 2014

   Thanks for sharing the link; I hadn’t seen that post. I understand that article to be expressing at least the following concerns: 1) posting your pre-print before acceptance could harm anonymous peer review; 2) not posting your pre-print might mean that someone publishes your idea before you do (you get scooped); and 3) even if you do post your pre-print, someone else might steal your idea and not credit it properly.
   I also understand the post to be saying that 2 is worse than 1, and I agree with that. I’d also add that we should all, as referees, try to exercise some self-restraint and not Google titles of papers, at least until the refereeing process is completed!
   3 can happen anyway, even with published articles; I don’t know if it’s a genuine concern for pre-prints. Personally, as I suggested above, I tend to post articles only once they have been accepted for publication, in which case I label the paper “Forthcoming in journal/volume X” — or, perhaps they have been presented somewhere, in which case I label the paper “Presented at conference Y.” I would hope that such labels would deter someone from thinking that my ideas are free to steal (assuming anyone would want to steal my ideas!)
   The author opines:

   …what we really need is a disciplinary solution to the issue. We need an official system of professional norms and practices (I would say, one sanctioned by the APA) for how to treat matters of priority and citation. For instance, in physics, the arxiv is now considered the “gold standard.” Just about everyone uploads unpublished work to the arxiv before even sending it to a journal, and everyone cited arxiv papers — precisely in order to have a system that fairly and accurately establishes priority. If someone has something on the arxiv, then even if someone else publishes the same idea/finding in a peer-reviewed journal, the expectation (as I understand it) is that both must be cited.

   and that seems right to me. If not a formal policy, then at least an expected norm of philosophical culture.

   LikeLike

   Reply
7. 

   Roberta L. Millstein

   June 5, 2014

   I am rethinking my previous reply — upon reflection, I don’t think there is a conflict between the two FAQ items. The one you quote states that the work may be “preliminary,” which I take to be consistent with “work-in-progress.” Perhaps this is not the way that most people use the Archive, but that is the Archive policy.

   LikeLike

   Reply
8. 

   Jonathan Birch

   June 5, 2014

   Allegedly, posting preprints to archives can dilute citation counts. This is one argument against the practice that I have encountered. I guess the idea is that, on Google Scholar (are there any other sites that people use for citation counts?), the preprint and the published article will tend to register as separate items. But it’s easy to merge them manually into a single item, so I don’t really understand the alleged problem here.

   LikeLike

   Reply
9. 

   Roberta L. Millstein

   June 5, 2014

   Agreed, it’s really easy to merge items on one’s Google Scholar page, and to have Google notify you when it thinks it has a new item. So, I am not seeing the problem either.

   LikeLike

   Reply
10. 

    Bryan W Roberts

    June 9, 2014

    Interesting. In fact, as you suggest, the “citation siphon” seems to be a myth that has it exactly backwards — in most cases preprint servers actually boost citation counts. People inevitably refer to a forthcoming work before it’s in print, and preprint servers like PhilSci-Archive and arXiv actually prevent such earlier citations from being lost (either automatically on Google Scholar or by merging items as you point out).

    LikeLike

    Reply
11. 

    Roberta L. Millstein

    June 9, 2014

    Good point, Bryan. That’s another reason to use PhilSci Archive.

    LikeLike

    Reply