Manuscripts have a complex development process with multiple influencing factors. Reconstructing this process is difficult without large-scale, comparable data on different versions of manuscripts. Preprints are increasingly available and may provide access to the earliest manuscript versions. Here, we matched 6024 preprint-publication pairs across multiple fields and examined changes in their reference lists between the manuscript versions as one aspect of manuscripts’ development. We also qualitatively analysed the context of references to investigate the potential reasons for changes. We found that 90% of references were unchanged between versions and 8% were newly added. We found that manuscripts in the natural and medical sciences undergo more extensive reframing of the literature while changes in engineering mostly focused on methodological details. Our qualitative analysis suggests that peer review increases the methodological soundness of scientific claims, improves the communication of findings, and ensures appropriate credit for previous research.
A study of referencing changes in preprint-publication pairs across multiple fields / A. Akbaritabar, D. Stephen, F. Squazzoni. - In: JOURNAL OF INFORMETRICS. - ISSN 1751-1577. - 16:2(2022 May 31), pp. 101258.1-101258.13. [10.1016/j.joi.2022.101258]
A study of referencing changes in preprint-publication pairs across multiple fields
A. Akbaritabar
Primo
;F. SquazzoniUltimo
2022
Abstract
Manuscripts have a complex development process with multiple influencing factors. Reconstructing this process is difficult without large-scale, comparable data on different versions of manuscripts. Preprints are increasingly available and may provide access to the earliest manuscript versions. Here, we matched 6024 preprint-publication pairs across multiple fields and examined changes in their reference lists between the manuscript versions as one aspect of manuscripts’ development. We also qualitatively analysed the context of references to investigate the potential reasons for changes. We found that 90% of references were unchanged between versions and 8% were newly added. We found that manuscripts in the natural and medical sciences undergo more extensive reframing of the literature while changes in engineering mostly focused on methodological details. Our qualitative analysis suggests that peer review increases the methodological soundness of scientific claims, improves the communication of findings, and ensures appropriate credit for previous research.File | Dimensione | Formato | |
---|---|---|---|
AkbaritabarSquazzoni2022SInformetrics.pdf
accesso riservato
Tipologia:
Publisher's version/PDF
Dimensione
2.69 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
2.69 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri Richiedi una copia |
2102.03110.pdf
accesso aperto
Tipologia:
Pre-print (manoscritto inviato all'editore)
Dimensione
1.32 MB
Formato
Adobe PDF
|
1.32 MB | Adobe PDF | Visualizza/Apri |
Pubblicazioni consigliate
I documenti in IRIS sono protetti da copyright e tutti i diritti sono riservati, salvo diversa indicazione.