Ten simple rules for considering preprints
1
Office of the Director, National Institutes of Health, Bethesda, MD, USA
2
Whitehead Institute, Cambridge, MA, USA
3
Departmentof Cellular and Molecular Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA
4
Wellcome Trust, London, UK
- Published
- Accepted
- Subject Areas
- Science and Medical Education
- Keywords
- Preprints, ASAPbio
- Copyright
- © 2016 Bourne et al.
- Licence
- This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ Preprints) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited.
- Cite this article
- 2016. Ten simple rules for considering preprints. PeerJ Preprints 4:e2669v1 https://doi.org/10.7287/peerj.preprints.2669v1
Abstract
So why make your work available as preprints? There are perceived positives and negatives to disclosing scientific work in the form of a preprint, explored here in the form of 10 Simple Rules. These rules, if they pass review, will appear as part of the PLOS Computational Biology Ten Simple Rules Collection. The rules cover such issues as reward, incentives, speed of dissemination, quality, scooping, and record of priority. You cannot have an article describing preprints, without itself being a preprint!!
Author Comment
Submitted to PLOS Computational Biology as part of the Ten Simple Rules Collection.
