Draft submission guidelines for PaleorXiv
We asked, you spoke, we listened. Last week, we announced that PaleorXiv was open for submissions. This led to a great deal of discussion, as expected, including some important concerns from members of the Palaeo community. We are thankful for all of the engagement so far from all of you. As I previously stated “I want to hear from you, more than I want you to hear from me.“
As such, I have drafted the following submission guidelines. I hope these will help to clarify some/most/all of the potential issues people might have had, and therefore encourage more submissions.
PaleorXiv submission guidelines for authors
- Please note that preprints have not been through formal peer review processes. Researchers who re-use or cite them must take the responsibility to make sure that this status is clearly marked.
- Before you submit, please add a note to the front page that states “This is a preprint that has been submitted to journal XXX”. When you update to the postprint or accepted author manuscript, please change this to “This is a postprint that has been peer reviewed and accepted at the journal XXX.”
- Please exercise the same judgment you would use for any research output when it comes to the citation and re-use of preprints.
- We strongly encourage community interaction through commenting and sharing of preprints.
- Authors should update submissions with the postprint version or author-accepted manuscript. We will perform checks for journal compliance and embargo periods in these cases where needed.
- Note that preprint publication does not replace publishing with, or increase the risk of rejection from, journals.
- Papers identifying new genera or species should omit the name and replace it with ‘gen et. sp. nov.’, as appropriate.
As always, is anything from this missing? Is anything unclear? Do they help with any doubts that you had about preprints and PaleorXiv? Let me know!
In the mean time, we are still accepting pre-launch submissions. If you would like to join those who have submitted already, simply drop me a message here and we’ll take it forward.
Hi Jon,
As we discussed over email, the removal of new genus and species names goes some way to reducing potential taxonomic issues. However, I would go further and ensure that all new taxonomic names (i.e. higher Linnean ranks such as families), including replacement names, and new phylogenetic definitions are redacted, as all of these face the same issues of priority as species names. I notice that you’ve had very similar feedback on Twitter as well.
I think a general statement along the lines that authors of taxonomic papers should consider carefully the potential taxonomic implications before posting a preprint might be sensible.
Hey Richard,
OK, so I’ll add the two following statements to the guidelines:
1. For newly named higher level taxa, recombinations, referrals, synonymisations, and phylogenetic definitions, we strongly advise that these be fully redacted too prior to submission.
2. For manuscripts that include a lot of taxonomic and systematic work, authors are advised to carefully consider the taxonomic implications before posting.
How is that?
Of course, I will be watching manuscript submissions like a hawk, and rejecting anything that doesn’t meet these quite simple criteria.
Cheers!
Jon
Yes, that seems like an improvement. Others might have further thoughts.
Will you automatically link the preprint to the version of record on the publisher’s webpage on publication? That would mean that the preprint is always linked to the final published version, irrespective of green embargoes etc.
Yep, absolutely. Can do that by simply adding the DOI to the pre/postprint version. It’ll be as ‘automatic’ as possible, depending on authors, and my own ability to find out when the VORs get published (as in, the VOR DOI only becomes public once the article itself has).
I don’t think there’s a COS autocheck for embargoes or anything, so will take on that responsibility myself too.
Hi Jon, this is very exciting, and I think it’s cool that you’re seeking public feedback!
Does the second point imply that authors can only submit to Paleorxiv after submission to a journal?
Also, I think the assertion that preprints don’t increase journal rejection risk might be hard to back up with evidence. Maybe it would be better to provide a link to SHERPA/RoMEO and advice for authors to check journal policy?
I don’t know if this is already part of your submission process, but do submitters have to assert that all authors agree to the manuscript being posted? Some other overview of the screening process and conditions of submission might be helpful too.
It could also be useful to include some basic information about what is accepted and what is not (reviews? hypotheses?) and if the papers can be removed and under what circumstances.
Hey Jessica,
This is all super useful, thank you!
While it won’t be a condition, it would certainly be useful to know that preprints have been submitted to journals. Some members of the community raised issues that having preprints lying around that had never been submitted or no intention of submission to journals could lead to a proliferation of ‘bad science’.
I’ve added in the Sherpa/Romeo link now, that’s a much better idea.
I’m going to check that third point right away. At the moment, I do not think it is the case, or at least not formally checked.
And yes, that would totally be useful! One pre-launch submission is a review, and this might really help authors.
Thanks for taking the time to help here, you rock! 🙂
Jon
Right, updates:
PaleorXiv submission guidelines for authors
GENERAL
• PaleorXiv accepts all types of manuscript, including but not limited to systematic reviews, hypotheses, ‘negative’ results, and data and methods papers.
• We do not accept opinion pieces, letters, blog posts, or those which do not pass the normal community standards for submission.
• All submissions will go through a basic screening process to check for conformation with these guidelines.
• Submissions that do not meet these guidelines will be removed, and the authors notified.
• Please note that preprints are not formally peer reviewed. When re-using them, and especially when citing, this status should be clearly marked.
• Before submitting, please add a note to the front page stating “This is a preprint that has been submitted to journal XXX” where applicable. When updating to the postprint or accepted author manuscript, please change to “This is a postprint that has been peer reviewed and accepted at journal XXX.”
• Please exercise the same care and judgment you would use for any research output when it comes to the citation and re-use of preprints.
• We strongly encourage community interaction through commenting and sharing of preprints.
• All preprints can be updated with the postprint version or author-accepted manuscript. We will perform checks for journal compliance and embargo periods in these cases where needed.
• Note that preprint publication does not replace publishing with journals, and we recommend authors to use the SHERPA/RoMEO service to check journal preprint policies.
TAXONOMIC SUBMISSIONS
• When submitting taxonomic papers that identify new genera or species, please omit the name and replace with ‘gen et. sp. nov.’, as appropriate.
• For newly named higher level taxa, recombinations, referrals, synonymisations, and phylogenetic definitions, we strongly advise that these be fully redacted too prior to submission.
• For manuscripts that include a lot of taxonomic and systematic work, authors are advised to carefully consider the taxonomic implications before publishing.
For more information, please contact us here.
—————————————————————-
What else? 🙂