Having electronic preprints is logical

BMJ 1998;316:1907 ( 20 June )

Letters

Having electronic preprints is logical

The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.

EDITOR $---$ Delamothe asks what the policy of journals should be on publication on the internet of electronic preprints ("eprints").¹He points out that some journals, including the New England Journalof Medicine and, currently, the BMJ, reject papers whose substancehas already appeared as an eprint because they regard this manoeuvreas prior publication. This policy is illogical and impossibleto police. What is the difference between the published abstractof a study presented at a conference and an eprint? The only differencesare that the internet version is more accessible and likely tobe a fuller account of the study. To enforce the restrictive policyjournals must even now be searching the internet for evidenceof prior publication of every paper they receive; we do not envythem this nightmare.

We can imagine a scenario in which journals offer a home for eprints. When authors have ready . . . [Full text of this article]

CiteULike

Complore

Connotea

Del.icio.us Add to Digg

Digg

Technorati What's this?

Relevant Articles

Electronic preprints can be categorised: Mahesh Choolani
BMJ 1999 318: 55. [Extract] [Full Text]

Electronic preprints: what should the BMJ do?: Tony Delamothe
BMJ 1998 316: 794-795. [Extract] [Full Text]

This article has been cited by other articles:

Bohlin, I. (2004). Communication Regimes in Competition: The Current Transition in Scholarly Communication Seen through the Lens of the Sociology of Technology. Social Studies of Science 34: 365-391 [Abstract]
CHAPMAN, S. (1999). Prior publication on the web: new journal policy. Tobacco Control 8: 355-355 [Full text]
Smith, R. (1999). What is publication?. BMJ 318: 142-142 [Full text]
Choolani, M. (1999). Electronic preprints can be categorised. BMJ 318: 55a-55 [Full text]