Confronta i metodi
Esamina i metodi selezionati fianco a fianco; le righe che differiscono sono evidenziate.
| Server di preprint nella scienza× | Processo di Revisione Paritaria× | |
|---|---|---|
| Campo | Etica della pubblicazione | Etica della pubblicazione |
| Famiglia | Process / pipeline | Process / pipeline |
| Anno di origine≠ | 1991 | 1665 |
| Ideatore≠ | Paul Ginsparg (arXiv, 1991); Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory (bioRxiv, 2013); NIH (medRxiv, 2019) | Scientific publishing community; formalized by journals and COPE |
| Tipo≠ | Platform | Process |
| Fonte seminale≠ | Björk, B. C., Welling, P., Laakso, M., Majlender, P., Hedlund, T., & Guðnason, G. (2010). Open Access to the Scientific Journal Literature: Situation 2009. PLOS ONE, 5(6), e11273. DOI ↗ | Committee on Publication Ethics (2023). COPE Guidelines: Ethical Guidelines for Peer Reviewers. COPE. link ↗ |
| Alias | Preprints, Preprint Archives, Pre-publication Servers | Peer Reviewing, Manuscript Evaluation, Scholarly Review |
| Correlati | 4 | 4 |
| Sintesi≠ | Preprint servers are open-access repositories where researchers post manuscripts before, during, or alongside peer review at a formal journal. Preprints allow rapid, free dissemination of research findings without waiting for journal review (which can take 3–12 months). Major preprint servers include arXiv (physics, math, computer science; founded 1991), bioRxiv (biology; 2013), medRxiv (medicine; 2019), and others. Preprints are NOT peer-reviewed and should not be treated as final scientific evidence. However, they enable priority-claiming, feedback from the community, and rapid knowledge sharing in fast-moving fields. Many journals now accept manuscripts previously posted as preprints. | Peer review is the process by which manuscripts are evaluated by experts in the same field before publication in academic journals. Reviewers assess the manuscript's scientific merit, methodology, clarity, and contribution to the field. Established in 1665 with the first scientific journal (Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society), peer review remains the gold standard for quality control in academic publishing. Despite ongoing criticism and proposals for alternatives, peer review continues to filter low-quality and unethical work, though it is imperfect and sometimes slow. |
| ScholarGateInsieme di dati ↗ |
|
|