Hi @richardsever - are you guys still screening @biorxivpreprint submissions even for authors with a previous history of legit submissions? Isn't this overkilled?
I reckon anyone who has had previous pre-prints being accepted by journals should get a fast lane, don't you think?
@giorgiogilestro @biorxivpreprint yes - past performance is not necessarily indicative of future results ;-) More seriously, inclusion criteria could be compromised by drift to less and less appropriate content from repeat authors. plus there are already instances where papers are declined from individuals who have previously posted. As ever it's work at the fringes you have to worry about.
@giorgiogilestro @biorxivpreprint one can imagine slightly different screening approaches based on history, but I don't think we'd ever have a zero-screening path
@richardsever @giorgiogilestro @biorxivpreprint after all, Lynn Margulis "screened" this https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0908357106
@marcdionne @richardsever @giorgiogilestro @biorxivpreprint Hey! I like that paper. It's a testable hypothesis.
@cyrilpedia @richardsever @giorgiogilestro @biorxivpreprint I got your testable hypothesis right here
@marcdionne @richardsever @giorgiogilestro @biorxivpreprint Dont make me call in a moderator, Marc. This is a gentleman's thread.
@cyrilpedia @marcdionne @giorgiogilestro @biorxivpreprint I remember Yaniv Erlich was the first to propose no screening for people who already posted x preprints years ago. My response was "Yaniv, you are the best evidence that would not work!"