Visitors   Views   Downloads

The prehistory of biology preprints: a forgotten experiment from the 1960s

View preprint
Our first speaker is @matthewcobb discussing his preprint on the history of preprints in Biology: https://t.co/LkqJJhyCBG #UoMOpenResearch
69 days ago
RT @uranus_2: 生物学ではpreprintsは1961年からNIHで実施されたことがあるが、出版社側がpreprintsを受け付けなかったので1967年までに終了したことがある。The prehistory of biology preprints https://…
生物学ではpreprintsは1961年からNIHで実施されたことがあるが、出版社側がpreprintsを受け付けなかったので1967年までに終了したことがある。The prehistory of biology preprints https://t.co/BofdRDrlS8
RT @matthewcobb: Submitted the revised version of my MS on the prehistory of preprints to @PLOSBiology. Better than the preprint: https://t…
RT @matthewcobb: Submitted the revised version of my MS on the prehistory of preprints to @PLOSBiology. Better than the preprint: https://t…
RT @matthewcobb: Submitted the revised version of my MS on the prehistory of preprints to @PLOSBiology. Better than the preprint: https://t…
RT @matthewcobb: Submitted the revised version of my MS on the prehistory of preprints to @PLOSBiology. Better than the preprint: https://t…
RT @matthewcobb: Submitted the revised version of my MS on the prehistory of preprints to @PLOSBiology. Better than the preprint: https://t…
RT @matthewcobb: Submitted the revised version of my MS on the prehistory of preprints to @PLOSBiology. Better than the preprint: https://t…
RT @matthewcobb: Submitted the revised version of my MS on the prehistory of preprints to @PLOSBiology. Better than the preprint: https://t…
RT @matthewcobb: Submitted the revised version of my MS on the prehistory of preprints to @PLOSBiology. Better than the preprint: https://t…
Submitted the revised version of my MS on the prehistory of preprints to @PLOSBiology. Better than the preprint: https://t.co/c8fOHqFiBa
Great pre-print about the 50 year push for @biorxivpreprint pre-prints in biology by @matthewcobb https://t.co/MNJYpu3Ynn
75 days ago
RT @matthewcobb: Interested in #preprints in biology – and physics? This might shed some interesting light. @biorxivpreprint https://t.co/l…
Fascinating account of a 1960s preprints experiment: https://t.co/qgKIE6431M HT Dick Wakeford. Nasty "Nature" editor probably John Maddox
RT @AileenFyfe: Biologists tried preprints back in 1960s: https://t.co/2uv6UCG6ZB https://t.co/bPCzPVoWiE
87 days ago
RT @PeerJPreprints: The prehistory of biology preprints: a forgotten experiment from the 1960s https://t.co/AmuI44C2te #PeerRevWk17
RT @PeerJPreprints: The prehistory of biology preprints: a forgotten experiment from the 1960s https://t.co/AmuI44C2te #PeerRevWk17
90 days ago
RT @PeerJPreprints: The prehistory of biology preprints: a forgotten experiment from the 1960s https://t.co/AmuI44C2te #PeerRevWk17
The prehistory of biology preprints: a forgotten experiment from the 1960s https://t.co/AmuI44C2te #PeerRevWk17
RT @AileenFyfe: Biologists tried preprints back in 1960s: https://t.co/2uv6UCG6ZB https://t.co/bPCzPVoWiE
RT @AileenFyfe: Biologists tried preprints back in 1960s: https://t.co/2uv6UCG6ZB https://t.co/bPCzPVoWiE
RT @AileenFyfe: Biologists tried preprints back in 1960s: https://t.co/2uv6UCG6ZB https://t.co/bPCzPVoWiE
Biologists tried preprints back in 1960s: https://t.co/2uv6UCG6ZB https://t.co/bPCzPVoWiE
RT @matthewcobb: In 9 days, my @thePeerJ #preprint on the prehistory of preprints (keep up) has 1780 views, 244 downloads. #ASAPbio https:/…
NOT PEER-REVIEWED
"PeerJ Preprints" is a venue for early communication or feedback before peer review. Data may be preliminary.

Additional Information

Competing Interests

The author declares that he has no competing interests.

Author Contributions

Matthew Cobb analyzed the data, wrote the paper, prepared figures and/or tables, reviewed drafts of the paper.

Data Deposition

The following information was supplied regarding data availability:

The research in this article did not generate any data or code; it is purely historical. Links are given to all archival sources cited.

Funding

This work was supported by a Sydney Brenner Research Scholarship (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.


Add your feedback

Before adding feedback, consider if it can be asked as a question instead, and if so then use the Question tab. Pointing out typos is fine, but authors are encouraged to accept only substantially helpful feedback.

Some Markdown syntax is allowed: _italic_ **bold** ^superscript^ ~subscript~ %%blockquote%% [link text](link URL)
 
By posting this you agree to PeerJ's commenting policies