Preprints on the coronavirus have been impressively reliable
The case for publishing in expensive, restrictive scientific journals continues to weaken
SCIENTIFIC PUBLISHING moves slowly. Depending on the academic field, it can take years for a single paper to get published in a well-regarded journal. In that time, a paper might undergo several rounds of peer-review by academic volunteers, followed by corrections—and possibly rejections—before a new scientific result sees the light of day.
This rigmarole is meant to ensure that the research that enters the scientific record is reputable, rigorous and trustworthy. That is admirable—and the system generally works well—but it also introduces a bottleneck, delaying the circulation of new scientific results. To get around this, scientists can release a “preprint”: a manuscript of a paper posted to a public server online before it has completed a formal peer-review process.
This article appeared in the Science & technology section of the print edition under the headline "Handsome prints"
More from Science & technology
To stay fit, future Moon-dwellers will need special workouts
Running around the inside of a barrel might help
Wind turbines keep getting bigger
That poses a giant transport problem
New crop-spraying technologies are more efficient than ever
Pesticide use could be cut by up to 90%