I just got done uploading a manuscript to the PeerJ Preprint server. It was awesome! This was a manuscript that was outside even the loosest of definitions of quantitative biology, and therefore not appropriate for arXiv.
I am really keen to see biologists using preprint servers, and up until now, where to send non quant. manuscripts was a bit of a problem. Sure, researchers could (and sometime do) host pre-review manuscripts on their own website, but this is problematic for a few reasons. While I’m not getting into the details here, the issue of visibility (and having a DOI) is huge– how should people find interesting manuscripts? A centralized repository like arXiv or PeerJ is crucial!
Now that the PeerJ preprint server is up and running, it’s up to us to keep it going. I like arXiv for a number of reasons (also, it’s more established), but the PeerJ Preprint server has a few major advantages– commenting (which may fill the role Haldane’s sieve currently fills for arXiv papers), speed (article visible within a few hours), social media integration, and article level metrics (at least basic metrics).
So, the question is this– where to send my NEXT preprint?? Do I send to arXiv, or to PeerJ.. I guess I’m kind of leaning towards PeerJ, unless somebody has a good argument against it.
P.S. I guess there are 3 things that concern me:
- What happens to preprints if PeerJ folds– are they lost in the bowels of the internets?
- Will Journals consider PeerJ preprints equivalent to those posted on arXiv?
- Does Google Scholar index PeerJ preprints? (I think the answer is Yes)