Article for the Geological Society of London (GSL) on Preprints: from Chris Jackson

@Christopher Jackson Well, that worked from my end.

Is there a deadline for this article? I have some background material re: EarthArXiv and its usage, but very little bandwidth over the next few weeks.

Hi All! @Olivier Pourret and me have pulled this together. We only have around 500 words, so things need to be tight, punchy, and perhaps provocative. Please have a look and see what you all think! https://docs.google.com/document/d/1DotVSAAIlAwbzpuOQ_1pQG1NT8gF_edQjrbq00Wk0Dw/edit?usp=sharing

i think the article does a nice job of highlighting some of the main benefits of preprints. For short articles, my personal opinion is to get the main point in the 1st paragraph or even first sentence. I think for me the main point currently lives in the last paragraph — i.e., Preprints bring Geosciences into the 21st century by remove structural barriers and opacity that inhibit broad participation in the scientific process (i.e., paywalls, hidden reviewing, gatekeeping). You could put a line like this in first paragraph, and then the list of advantages becomes a list of reasons why preprinting is a '21st century' practice, and a list of evidence for why preprinting removes structural barriers

I like what you all have so far, and agree with Evan’s points. I have a few thoughts (wearing my librarian hat). Take them or leave them.

Perhaps you don’t want to go this far, but I would argue that preprints can serve as end-products on their own. In the case of arXiv, the majority of articles go on to be published, but for many Earth Science journals, a researcher is still faced with the choice of paying “page charges” to publish paywalled articles, or APCs to go open. I’d argue that a preprint reviewed by colleagues and promoted to your targeted audience, is a sufficient/efficient, cost-effective and perhaps, down the line, desirable outcome.

You might also add a point that for an interdisciplinary field like Earth Sciences, preprints break down the silos that traditional journals uphold, exposing us all to broader research than we might encounter otherwise, and giving a home to works that don’t have a clear destination in a traditional publication.

Something from Force 11.... FYI

Thanks all for the comments. Please feel free to make (suggested) edits to the Google Doc. Much of what you’re saying I agree with, with bits of this already hinted at in the existing text. So please, go wild!

This is already hinted at here: 'Greater visibility and accessibility for research outputs, given there is no charge for posting or reading a preprint;' but I would also say more explicitly that preprints increase access to research for those who do not have access to pay walled journals, or limited access due to working remotely during lockdowns etc. - this has been a key benefit that I've seen over the past couple of years with students working from home and struggling to use uni libraries etc. with slow/unreliable internet connections. You could also argue that preprints allow those who cannot afford high publishing fees to share their research outputs more widely - yes there are fee waiver schemes etc. but these don't always work and not everyone is aware of them.

ok, i went wild... (sorry in advance).. it looks like a lot, but i think its just a re-org of what was already there... as always, feel free to ignore it all...

Hi All! Massive delay on this from the GSL side...but they've finally produced the copy. Can @Jess Hillman , @Samantha Teplitzky , @Evan Goldstein and @Olivier Pourret please check this and critically, add your affilliations and Twitter, etc, handles, if you're happy to share them: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1j-SRIbtpMpFYySDWJ6SQvY80utXxK26D82SfwziHczk/edit?usp=sharing. I need to get it back to them by the end of the week...Ta!