Affiliation:
1. Independent , Ikenobe 3011-2, Kagawa-ken , Miki-cho 761-0799 , Japan
Abstract
Abstract
For data information scientists, librarians and academics alike, it is a worrisome sign when information or a file opaquely disappears from the body of scientific literature, even more so when it carries a digital object identifier (DOI). This is because the DOI typically offers a published paper a form of digital permanence. Preprints are being increasingly fused into the publication stream, serving as a prelude to submission to a peer-reviewed journal. One of the main preprint servers is Elsevier’s SSRN. This paper, a rare case study, describes three preprints by the same authors related to peer review that were withdrawn (i.e., retracted). Apart from a short notice with identical text (“This paper has been removed from SSRN at the request of the author, SSRN, or the rights holder”), no date of the withdrawals and no explanation were publicly provided. Following queries to the authors and SSRN, the three preprints were reinstated around February 2023. Finally, the original title of two of the preprints was manipulated in the reinstated preprints. This historical case study not only highlights the risks of opaque preprint withdrawals, but also the ease with which information on preprint servers (in this case SSRN) can be modified and/or manipulated.
Subject
Library and Information Sciences,Computer Science Applications,Conservation
Reference21 articles.
1. ASAPbio. 2023. List of Preprint Servers: Policies and Practices across Platforms. https://asapbio.org/preprint-servers (accessed March 23, 2023).
2. COPE. 2019. Retraction Guidelines. https://publicationethics.org/files/retraction-guidelines.pdf (accessed September 14, 2023).
3. Eckmann, P., and A. Bandrowski. 2023. “PreprintMatch: A Tool for Preprint to Publication Detection Shows Global Inequities in Scientific Publication.” PLoS One 18 (3): e0281659. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0281659.
4. García, J.A., R. Rodriguez-Sánchez, and J. Fdez-Valdivia. 2021a. “Benefits of Cooperative Peer Review.” https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3824655.
5. García, J.A., R. Rodriguez-Sánchez, and J. Fdez-Valdivia. 2021b. “A Theory of Over-revision in Peer Review.” https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3825806.
Cited by
1 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Against “silent” retractions in neuroscience;European Journal of Neuroscience;2024-04