RT @tsawallis: Comparing preprints to final articles to measure the "value added" by publishers: "Our analysis revealed that the text cont…
RT @jamesneal: Wow, this is an important paper, studying changes between the preprint and published versions of scientific articles in comm…
RT @pash22: Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions https://t.co/2Ep3miPWc2 The text contents of the sc…
RT @jamesneal: Wow, this is an important paper, studying changes between the preprint and published versions of scientific articles in comm…
RT @tsawallis: Comparing preprints to final articles to measure the "value added" by publishers: "Our analysis revealed that the text cont…
RT @tsawallis: Comparing preprints to final articles to measure the "value added" by publishers: "Our analysis revealed that the text cont…
Comparing preprints to final articles to measure the "value added" by publishers: "Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed very little from their pre-print to final published versions. " https://t.co/CSnSkV8
This. https://t.co/e2PnhQdtR9
Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions https://t.co/2Ep3miPWc2 The text contents of the scientific papers generally changed very little from their pre-print to final published versions
worth noting https://t.co/t96HIaIEsF
What value do for-profit journals / publishers add to the quality of academic papers? Here’s one study suggesting the answer may be “not much.” In my experience w/ #MedEd, I’ve found that some journals do in fact contribute quite a lot! @LaurenMaggio https
For pay publishers add little. Published in a for pay journal. Paywalled. https://t.co/zMqmlGdHHG
RT @McDawg: April1st joke? "Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions" https://t.co/QAUZ8vBUws Springer…
RT @jamesneal: Wow, this is an important paper, studying changes between the preprint and published versions of scientific articles in comm…
RT @jamesneal: Wow, this is an important paper, studying changes between the preprint and published versions of scientific articles in comm…
RT @jamesneal: Wow, this is an important paper, studying changes between the preprint and published versions of scientific articles in comm…
RT @McDawg: April1st joke? "Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions" https://t.co/QAUZ8vBUws Springer…
RT @McDawg: April1st joke? "Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions" https://t.co/QAUZ8vBUws Springer…
April1st joke? "Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions" https://t.co/QAUZ8vBUws Springer will charge you £39.94 for that or the pre-print itself is #openaccess https://t.co/VkYBjAjpTI https://t.co/cBf2sHL7HR
Wow, this is an important paper, studying changes between the preprint and published versions of scientific articles in commercial journals. Where is the added value? https://t.co/TYBhsc0Lns
Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions https://t.co/kkee0dp758
Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions https://t.co/O1OlffqAzO
Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions https://t.co/pndrz06Dke
A paper on how little value publishers bring to scientific papers being published on a closed access publisher.. 🙃 https://t.co/vj6YOxjWf1
Scientific journal publishers add nothing of value to articles says article published by scientific journal publisher: https://t.co/1DUpKVGdiC
Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions https://t.co/6k9yOiJhSg
Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions: Comments https://t.co/yJNauPbLck
Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions https://t.co/LZr9Jqc6b9 (cmts https://t.co/87TYI43Cij)
Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions: https://t.co/4IcPWz4yTK Comments: https://t.co/H3775GOTYu
Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions https://t.co/h1NtAyVEal
Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions https://t.co/jr8cTnXxTt #HackerNews #TechnologyNews
Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions L: https://t.co/uFjFt59YwW C: https://t.co/G7GUwYSJlk
@techdirt so the Springer version is paywalled ($39.95) even though the copyright statement says it’s a U.S. Government Work, thus public domain in the U.S. Can the situation around this article get any more ridiculous? https://t.co/MfxkB0gRdT cc @carlmala
Research shows that "the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed very little from their pre-print to final published versions". https://t.co/NIvIFnW2nK (2018, 🔒), pre-print (2016) available here: https://t.co/oUhsHCNXsL. #openaccess
RT @petersuber: More on pub claims of added value. "Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed…
RT @robertkiley: Comparing text of #preprint with Version of Record shows that "contents of the scientific papers generally changed very li…
RT @robertkiley: Comparing text of #preprint with Version of Record shows that "contents of the scientific papers generally changed very li…
RT @robertkiley: Comparing text of #preprint with Version of Record shows that "contents of the scientific papers generally changed very li…
RT @robertkiley: Comparing text of #preprint with Version of Record shows that "contents of the scientific papers generally changed very li…
RT @Richard56: Unsurprising. Peer review adds little value. We know too that when authors have papers rejected with lots of comments they o…
Hmm. Evidence presented here that "...there are no significant differences in aggregate between pre-prints and their corresponding final published versions" seems a bit thin. What would count as a "significant difference"? Substantial revisions may entail
RT @Richard56: Unsurprising. Peer review adds little value. We know too that when authors have papers rejected with lots of comments they o…
RT @Richard56: Unsurprising. Peer review adds little value. We know too that when authors have papers rejected with lots of comments they o…
RT @Richard56: Unsurprising. Peer review adds little value. We know too that when authors have papers rejected with lots of comments they o…
RT @Richard56: Unsurprising. Peer review adds little value. We know too that when authors have papers rejected with lots of comments they o…
RT @Richard56: Unsurprising. Peer review adds little value. We know too that when authors have papers rejected with lots of comments they o…
Unsurprising. Peer review adds little value. We know too that when authors have papers rejected with lots of comments they often ignore them and simply submit the original manuscript elsewhere. https://t.co/1sJfcrzyWD
RT @robertkiley: Comparing text of #preprint with Version of Record shows that "contents of the scientific papers generally changed very li…
RT @robertkiley: Comparing text of #preprint with Version of Record shows that "contents of the scientific papers generally changed very li…
Ergo, preprint. 😀 https://t.co/NpAz6ewrdw
RT @robertkiley: Comparing text of #preprint with Version of Record shows that "contents of the scientific papers generally changed very li…
RT @robertkiley: Comparing text of #preprint with Version of Record shows that "contents of the scientific papers generally changed very li…
RT @robertkiley: Comparing text of #preprint with Version of Record shows that "contents of the scientific papers generally changed very li…
RT @RickyPo: Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions #paywalled https://t.co/nHbw4FHz0L
RT @robertkiley: Comparing text of #preprint with Version of Record shows that "contents of the scientific papers generally changed very li…
RT @petersuber: More on pub claims of added value. "Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed…
RT @robertkiley: Comparing text of #preprint with Version of Record shows that "contents of the scientific papers generally changed very li…
RT @mnkrchrd: "Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed very little from their pre-print to…
RT @robertkiley: Comparing text of #preprint with Version of Record shows that "contents of the scientific papers generally changed very li…
How does @SpringerNature charge $39.95 for a paper the publisher itself says cannot be copyrighted in the US!? Last I checked, Seattle is (sadly) still in the USA https://t.co/OhORtuS4eS https://t.co/7nQqeMbAjf
RT @robertkiley: Comparing text of #preprint with Version of Record shows that "contents of the scientific papers generally changed very li…
"Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed very little from their pre-print to final published versions." https://t.co/bb8alH0YFp
@robertkiley More arguments to abandon peer review + journal embargoes ("guidelines") on news for preprints which now extend to many weeks? https://t.co/ikYwkZCGfy
RT @robertkiley: Comparing text of #preprint with Version of Record shows that "contents of the scientific papers generally changed very li…
Did they factor in papers that were rejected? #preprint https://t.co/9uIJbPz8v1
Comparing text of #preprint with Version of Record shows that "contents of the scientific papers generally changed very little". See paywalled article at: https://t.co/n6C7VTlHMr or preprint https://t.co/Vh2WIhsYpe And I assume that preprint is similar t
RT @RickyPo: Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions #paywalled https://t.co/nHbw4FHz0L
RT @RickyPo: Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions #paywalled https://t.co/nHbw4FHz0L
RT @RickyPo: Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions #paywalled https://t.co/nHbw4FHz0L
Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions #paywalled https://t.co/nHbw4FHz0L
RT @petersuber: More on pub claims of added value. "Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed…
Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions - Springer https://t.co/5h8v83TG8F via @nuzzel thanks @PaulRoyster
RT @petersuber: More on pub claims of added value. "Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed…
RT @petersuber: More on pub claims of added value. "Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed…
RT @petersuber: More on pub claims of added value. "Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed…
RT @petersuber: More on pub claims of added value. "Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed…
Comparing published scientific journal articles to their pre-print versions | SpringerLink https://t.co/xEv22vP6iS
RT @petersuber: More on pub claims of added value. "Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed…
RT @petersuber: More on pub claims of added value. "Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed…
RT @petersuber: More on pub claims of added value. "Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed…
RT @petersuber: More on pub claims of added value. "Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed…
More on pub claims of added value. "Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed very little from their pre-print to final published versions." https://t.co/JJr6Z1R1Vg
Now it has appeared in print – behind a paywall… massively different! Has a whole extra study on bioRxiv in it. https://t.co/igOFHTXWCz Critique incoming from @TimHVines https://t.co/2z1HEu6KSk 3/3
RT @Protohedgehog: Empirical evidence that the value-add of publishers to scholarly research articles is virtually undetectable https://t.c…
RT @phylogenomics: OK this seems like an important finding implying publishers don't add much value but can't get over the fact that a pape…
RT @phylogenomics: OK this seems like an important finding implying publishers don't add much value but can't get over the fact that a pape…
RT @phylogenomics: OK this seems like an important finding implying publishers don't add much value but can't get over the fact that a pape…
RT @phylogenomics: OK this seems like an important finding implying publishers don't add much value but can't get over the fact that a pape…
RT @phylogenomics: OK this seems like an important finding implying publishers don't add much value but can't get over the fact that a pape…
RT @phylogenomics: OK this seems like an important finding implying publishers don't add much value but can't get over the fact that a pape…
RT @Protohedgehog: Empirical evidence that the value-add of publishers to scholarly research articles is virtually undetectable https://t.c…
RT @phylogenomics: OK this seems like an important finding implying publishers don't add much value but can't get over the fact that a pape…
RT @phylogenomics: OK this seems like an important finding implying publishers don't add much value but can't get over the fact that a pape…
RT @Protohedgehog: Empirical evidence that the value-add of publishers to scholarly research articles is virtually undetectable https://t.c…
RT @phylogenomics: OK this seems like an important finding implying publishers don't add much value but can't get over the fact that a pape…