1
Why was preprint feedback not considered?

A preprint of this article has been published mid-december and after reading the title, I was highly interested in this topic. After reading the preprint manuscript, however, I was a little disappointed since it suffered from some major flaws. Regarding the importance of the topic, I gave detailed feedback (about two weeks before a revision was submitted to PeerJ). Unfortunately, this feedback seems not to have reached the authors (it was neither up/down-voted, nor were any of my concerns addressed in the revision).

My question is now: Why was my feedback not considered?

Did the authors simply not get it?

Or did they get it and decided intentionally not to consider it at all?

Whatever the case was - I am very interested in what the authors think about my feedback, because I thought the purpose of preprints was to get a broad feedback from more than some selected reviewers and to help to improve a manuscript substantially.

waiting for moderation
2 Answers
2
Accepted answer

When a question, or feedback, is left on an article all co-authors are alerted to that fact via email. Obviously, however, authors have the choice as to whether or not to respond.

In addition, if an article is undergoing peer-review, and the preprint version of that article has had comments left on it, then the assigned Academic Editor is alerted to this fact when they are making their editorial decision, and again they are at liberty to use that feedback (or not).

waiting for moderation
0

Thank you very much for this background information. I already guessed that the authors will be informed when feedback is provided, but it is very interesting that the academic editor also receives an alert.

It is obvious that authors are free to decide whether to respond to a feedback or not. For the sake of a scientific discourse, I feel it is highly desirable to respond to feedback, but I see that this may not always be possible.

Nevertheless, I still have serious concerns, but since I do not feel comfortable to discuss these concerns in this place, I would rather directly address the editors-in-chief.

-
waiting for moderation
0
Accepted answer

Thank you for your feedback on our preprint paper. We highly appreciate your thorough thoughts on our work. We followed the journal's recommendation of parallel submission and submitted our manuscript simultaneously to the preprint server and the journal review process. However, doing so unfortunately eliminates the potential benefit of early feedback by preprint publication. Thus, the paper was already under review when we received the comment and we followed the instructions of the reviewers for the revision of the paper.

We will certainly consider your feedback for our future work. We agree, a reference model benefits from broader input and should be validated in different settings. To our knowledge, a reference model for requirements in this context was not published before, thus we consider our work as a basis for us and others that will be improved over time. We also discussed your suggestions regarding the completeness of our reference model. It is often debatable which requirements should be part of a generic model and which are specific to a project.

waiting for moderation