[Request]: Recommendation for preprints #1267
Comments
|
My general opinion here is that |
Hmm . . . perhaps this is just the semantics of the word "published" but I feel that "unpublished" would contradict the fact that a preprint is a "form of publication". It hasn't gotten through the peer-review process but that's pretty much only the most important difference from a regular peer-reviewed article. A preprint is published in all intents and purposes: It's gotten a DOI and the public can (usually freely) read it. Reputable preprint services promise to keep those article available to the public in the foreseeable future. Some preprint-hosting services even have minimal quality control by editors. On the other hand, "unpublished" implies that the article isn't publicly available: you would have to locate the author and ask her/him for a copy to read it. So, a distinction between "unpublished" and "preprint" would be useful to make in the reference list. I don't have particular preferences between For that matter, a preprint entry would need a standardized way to indicate the version. Unlike books, "the same" preprint can have multiple versions, all of which are publicly available under the same DOI. |
|
I like the APA route of using "HOWPUBLISHED" to indicate things like preprints etc and everything is then an |
|
I agree that But I disagree that biblatex/bibtex/bib/biblatex/biblatex-examples.bib Lines 1386 to 1399 in 4c31c6b biblatex/bibtex/bib/biblatex/biblatex-examples.bib Lines 1420 to 1439 in 4c31c6b biblatex/bibtex/bib/biblatex/biblatex-examples.bib Lines 1457 to 1479 in 4c31c6b |
I don't think that the name of the peer-reviewed journal that the manuscript would eventually be published is relevant to the present discussion. If you post your preprint to a preprinting service, it will remain there for ever, whether the manuscript is eventually published in a peer-reviewed journal or not. We are discussing the way to refer to the preprint, not the peer-reviewed journal which the preprint is ultimately published.
I'm afraid I don't see what the practical problem is, if you put the name of the preprinting service in the journaltitle field. Whether arXiv should count as a journal or not, is not the question we are asking here. The question is how to record and present the name of the preprinting service. Printing the name "arXiv" in the place of journal is a practically fine way. If the fact that it is a preprint is somehow indicated (for example with On the other hand, I don't see any practical problems with Or, instead of redefining |
|
I'm keen on the idea of using n2t's meta-resolving service which seems to be able to resolve most "eprint" services (see #1183 ) and I would agree that |
Alright. I'm probably missing something. Anyway, here is an attempt to clarify my train of thought, which I think is at least tangentially relevant to the issue at hand. One question that arose here was which entry type would be appropriate for preprint papers. I don't think
Well, the
So to answer your question: Yes, the name of other preprint services also counts as
biblatex/tex/latex/biblatex/biblatex.def Lines 509 to 555 in 4c31c6b Example for bioRxiv and JSTOR \documentclass[british]{article}
\usepackage[T1]{fontenc}
\usepackage{babel}
\usepackage{csquotes}
\usepackage[backend=biber, style=authoryear]{biblatex}
\usepackage{hyperref}
\begin{filecontents}{\jobname.bib}
@book{elk,
author = {Anne Elk},
title = {A Theory on Brontosauruses},
year = {1972},
publisher = {Monthy \& Co.},
location = {London},
eprinttype = {jstor},
eprint = {12345678},
}
@online{puffin,
author = {Oliver Kersten and Bastiaan Star and Deborah M. Leigh
and Tycho Anker-Nilssen and Hallvard Strøm
and Jóhannis Danielsen and Sébastien Descamps
and Kjell E. Erikstad and Michelle G. Fitzsimmons
and Jérôme Fort and Erpur S. Hansen and Mike P. Harris
and Martin Irestedt and Oddmund Kleven and Mark L. Mallory
and Kjetill S. Jakobsen and Sanne Boessenkool},
title = {Complex Population Structure
of the {Atlantic} Puffin Revealed by Whole Genome Analyses},
date = {2020-11-07},
eprinttype = {bioRxiv},
eprint = {2020.11.05.351874},
doi = {10.1101/2020.11.05.351874},
}
\end{filecontents}
\addbibresource{\jobname.bib}
\addbibresource{biblatex-examples.bib}
\begin{document}
Lorem \autocite{sigfridsson,elk,puffin}
\printbibliography
\end{document}However, I feel that the idea of |
You've just said it! It's just semantics. What I'm saying is, forget about semantics. :-) Suppose we declare that "the name of the preprinting service shall be put in On the other hand, your proposal includes a semantic problem, if semantics is important to you. You propose that the name of the preprinting service should be put in But, as I said, forget about semantics :-) Now, I have a question about your proposal:
Does that mean that each time you find a new preprinting service, you have to send the information to the authors of As an example, let's say you want to cite a preprint on https://essopenarchive.org . Its
Yes, we still need a method or convention to indicate that the particular bib entry is a preprint because this information needs to be printed in the reference list. |
|
Thing is: Semantics are not just idle word play here. If we want to develop official guidance, we need to take into account the meaning of fields (as documented) because users and style developers depend on them. It's absolutely fine to ignore semantics on a case-by-case basis if you like the result, but for documented best practice recommendations we need to make sure that styles will (still have the chance to) produce sensible output. What if you are OK with getting essentially analogous output for eprints and articles published in a journal (with the eprint service standing in for the journal), but there is a style out there that distinguishes these cases? After all, we don't just put the fully formatted bibliography entry into the
I wouldn't get too hung up on the word type here (which can mean almost anything to almost nothing, depending on the "level" we operate). Maybe type isn't the most intuitive name for the job (mind you: I do think it works and I am painfully aware of the difficulty of choosing good names for things, especially if they are user-facing). If you will, think of
I don't quite understand what you mean by preprint services of "arxiv" eprinttype, but I firmly believe that arXiv and say bioRxiv and PsyArXiv are three different
Yes and no. First of all, this is really what I would like to avoid. There are countless possible eprint services out there and I don't want us to have to maintain a list of them and in a way be a gatekeeper as to which service is "good enough" to be included.
biblatex/tex/latex/biblatex/biblatex.def Lines 509 to 519 in 4c31c6b this is used if no
see e.g. the However, this will only print the eprint service name and the ID. If you want there to be a link or you don't want to worry about capitalisation of the biblatex/tex/latex/biblatex/biblatex.def Lines 520 to 556 in 4c31c6b Do note that at least in the standard styles, you cannot have an |
So, after all, what is your proposal to modify biblatex for preprints, after all? What bib entry should we write for a preprint and how should the fields be handled by biblatex? The requirements include
One proposal would be to extend the meaning of the You propose to use
I think I see what you mean. Then, what about changing the meaning of the Then, (if I understand your argument correctly), you will agree that
Initially I thought you get hung up on the word journal and that was the reason for your objection to using
If you will, think of |
|
Since we have default driver-level maps distributed with biblatex, we should use them. I agree with @moewew that the semantics derived from typical interpretation of field names matter to the general user and so we can just internally move to |
At the moment, I don't know. I just wanted to clear up some issues with the semantics before they got lost in the enthusiasm for change. I also wanted to explain the status quo. If it turns out the status quo is not good enough, we need to think about a new solution. But that has to be done carefully - we need to take into account what changes would mean for users and style developers. For now I'm a bit sceptical about just repurposing
Let me just comment in broad strokes, since I haven't completely made up my mind about the specifics just yet. Yes, I believe that the main (and possibly final) arbiter for field meanings is the documentation. But I also believe that we need to take into account the "realities on the ground", that is to say how people actually use fields and types (generally, people should be able to expect that fields mean roughly what their names suggests). Of course the latter is much more nebulous. As far as changes to the documentation go.
|
|
@moewew Thank you for your detailed explanation! I think I finally understand your position. I think I agree all that you said in your previous message. So,
so, you will agree with my objection to the use of would be what I expect from the name I agree with you that "people should be able to expect that fields mean roughly what their names suggests". Therefore you and I agree that |
|
Classifying a work deposited in the arXiv as an @Article is the WORST
possible solution to any of the problems that have been brought up on this
thread.
You can put lipstick on a pig, but it will always BE a pig. The correct way
to classify a pre-print that has not been published yet is
@Unpublished
with a field that can point to the arXiv number and link. The reasons are
many:
A published work is something that has gone peer-review and approved as
such -- the arXiv is not that -- is simply a repository.
A published work is acquired by libraries and thousands of different copies
of it are made available -- disaster will most certainly not strike all of
them at once. Pre-print repositories exist during a period of time, and
most that have existed in the past are defunct now.
Another huge difference is that serious publishers do serious editing on
works and even if the material is available at the arXiv, it can be
extremely different from the published version. The difference between the
two types of work should be clear and not muddled.
There are many types of works being deposited at the arXiv, articles,
books,... to name just a few.
There are many people that sort their references by "type" and they will
end up with arXiv material in the same list as published articles.
We should name it for what it is,
Paulo Ney
…On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 12:34 PM ryofurue ***@***.***> wrote:
@moewew <https://github.com/moewew> Thank you for your detailed
explanation! I think I finally understand your position. I think I agree
all that you said in your previous message.
So,
people should be able to expect that fields mean roughly what their names
suggests
so, you *will* agree with my objection to the use of eprinttype to put
the name of the preprint service. I expect that the "eprinttype" means the
type of the eprint service. Many people will agree with me about that.
Because it's a type, I expect multiple eprint services belong to a single
type. Say, archives AAA, CCC, and ZZZ are all of type "arxiv", so
@online{ . . .
archivename="AAA",
eprinttype="arxiv",
. . .
}
@online{ . . .
archivename="CCC",
eprinttype="arxiv",
. . .
}
would be what I expect from the name eprinttype.
I agree with you that "people should be able to expect that fields mean
roughly what their names suggests". Therefore you and I agree that
eprinttype is not a good field to put the name of the archive into.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1267 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAR7WYV5HIRQTOYF3SC5EOLW4DB3BANCNFSM6AAAAAAUOOMLYQ>
.
You are receiving this because you are subscribed to this thread.Message
ID: ***@***.***>
|
To you, the name is important. I agree that the name influences people how they treat the entry. For example,
I can imagine that. Then, let me follow that line of argument. The name "unpublished" implies (to me) that you have to locate the author and ask for a copy of the article because it's not publicly available. A preprint is "published" for all intents and purposes. True, it is not peer-reviewed, its quality control isn't as rigorous as at journal publishers. But that not make it "unpublished". What about technical reports? Research institutions around the world "publish" technical reports. In some cases, it's not peer-reviewed and its quality varies. On the other hand, at some preprint services, editors enforce minimum quality control. Because there is an online discussion forum on each article, the authors wouldn't post their preprint if they aren't confident of their work and writing. So, I argue that "posting a preprint to a reputable preprint service" is a relatively new form of "publication". So, if the name is important, if "we should name it for what it is", we should create a new type Actually, that's what Zotero the bibliography manager does. I started this thread because Zotero developers aren't able to find a good solution when they map Zotero's |
|
It is a pity that the "pub" in "publishing" and "public available" are the
same, but in science the meaning is very clear:
The act of "publishing" ecompasses 3 very well defined steps:
1. Go through peer-review
2. Go through editorial for uniform presentation
3. Be collected by libraries for permanent availability
The arXiv, or any other preprint server, do not comply with any of the
three -- so it is NOT a publication.
Now, material deposited at preprint repositories have always been public.
25 years ago you would make your request to a secretary or an author, these
days you make it to a web-server. There are no differences in the
processes, all material there has been publicly available.
So .... being publicly available does NOT mean it has been published.
I agree with you that @Unpublished is a misnomer, because it can be easily
taken for "not public" which is not the case.
I also agree with you that @preprint could be a good solution, specially in
the view of Zotero, and because unfortunately there are:
- preprint depositories that are not online and never will
- unpublished material that exists but never will be online
- unpublished material that do not even exist and has to be quoted
and for those the dichotomy of @***@***.*** is not always enough.
My initial post is to make clear that I don't think calling an arXiv
deposith a publication would be a reasonable solution for the problem.
PN
…On Tue, Mar 14, 2023 at 9:41 PM ryofurue ***@***.***> wrote:
We should name it for what it is,
To you, the name is important. I agree that the name influences people how
they treat the entry. For example,
There are many people that sort their references by "type"
I can imagine that. Then, let me follow that line of argument.
The name "unpublished" implies (to me) that you have to locate the author
and ask for a copy of the article *because it's not publicly available.*
A preprint is "published" for all intents and purposes. True, it is not
peer-reviewed, its quality control isn't as rigorous as at journal
publishers. But that not make it "unpublished".
What about technical reports? Research institutions around the world
"publish" technical reports. In some cases, it's not peer-reviewed and its
quality varies.
On the other hand, at some preprint services, editors enforce minimum
quality control. Because there is an online discussion forum on each
article, the authors wouldn't post their preprint if they aren't confident
of their work and writing.
So, I argue that "posting a preprint to a reputable preprint service" is a
relatively new form of "publication".
So, if the name is important, if "we should name it for what it is", *we
should create a new type @preprint*, shouldn't we?
Actually, that's what Zotero the bibliography manager does.
I started this thread because Zotero developers aren't able to find a good
solution when they map Zotero's preprint type to a biblatex type.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1267 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAR7WYWWVEJETE5TW7KMOILW4FB6RANCNFSM6AAAAAAUOOMLYQ>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
@ryofurue I appreciate the maieutics, but please let me reiterate that "generally, people should be able to expect that fields mean roughly what their names suggests" is quite a bit less strict than "all fields must have the meaning of the dictionary definition of their name" or "as soon as a couple of people think a name does not make sense, we need to change it" and that the documented field semantics from the manual are also relevant. I'm quite happy to give the documentation more leeway for slightly unnatural constructs like Anyway, I guess this is largely irrelevant. If we need to find a new way to deal with this with new fields, we can try and find more intuitive names than |
I'm off a tangent here, but it might be good idea to have a define-preprint-service command in Biblatex where you state label, formatted name and how to convert its string to a URL. Then you could use use that command yourself for a new service before it is added officially. |
If you want to list peer-reviewed articles together just using the type is not enough anyway. Reading this thread I mostly see thoughts about what it's like for the reader who reads the next when it's new. Like:
If you read it some years afterwards you rather want to examine if this thing has been published by now, and you might search for publications from that author made after the publication of the citation you saw. |
|
On Wed, Mar 15, 2023 at 3:58 AM perstar ***@***.***> wrote:
A published work is something that has gone peer-review and approved as
such -- the arXiv is not that -- is simply a repository.
That was given as part of the reason why calling a pre-print article
@articlewould be "the WORST possible solution". Is this because of a
misunderstanding of what @Article means? It doesn't have to be
peer-reviewed academic writing. A feature in *Scientific American* or in
a newspaper is also an @Article.
Scientific American and most worthy newspaper articles go through intense
peer-review.
I have used @Article for blog posts which has seemed natural to me, since
one of them is a "self-contained unit with its own title" in a periodical
(the blog).
That is not a suitable classification. You should use @online instead.
Message ID: ***@***.***>
… |
I'm not sure if I understand your point correctly (and if I don't, forgive me), but the preprint link will work. That is the whole point of having the entry of the preprint version as a separate entry from the peer-reviewed version in your bib database. The preprint will stay online with its own DOI, forever. So, after some years, the reader of your paper will click on the link in your reference list, go to the preprint website, and find the link to the peer-reviewed version. |
|
Just to add to the semantic argument. The goal of latex markup is to be semantic and so I tend to prefer semantic classification in entrytypes too. I really don't like |
|
Thank you all for the nice discussion. Here is a kind of summary from my perspective. But before that, regarding backward compatibility . . . Yes, biblatex has already been using With that in mind, there have been four proposals:
From me, I don't have any strong preferences. My weak preference would be #4 because it would be a bit more convenient (see my point (4) below) than the rest, simplest to the end user, and conceptually cleanest to everybody. Now, the following points are inconsequential, meaning that I write them just for fun!
To me, as long as (A) and (B) are not way too far from each other, I don't mind changing (A) by changing the documentation. It's fine to me to use So, I was surprised by you guys' strong feeling toward (B). Of course, I agree that the closer (A) and (B) are, the better, but that consideration is, to me, secondary or tertiary (as long as they are not way too far from each other, that is). In other words, my tolerance about the distance between (A) and (B) is much larger than yours, because if you change (A), eventually (B) will catch up! For example, if we decided to use
is your wishful thinking, I think. You imply it's only me who are confused by the name Person X: So, which field should we use for the name of the preprint service? Person Y: Let's look at this example . . . , is this it, X: But it's the type of the archive. What type does our preprint service belong to? Is it "arxiv"? Does it matter? Where is the field for the name anyway? Y: Don't know. Let's look at the manual . . . It says we should use X: Oh. Okay. :-) I think you probably underestimate the badness of But see below.
a) Open the webpage of the preprint you want to cite. b) Click on the Zotero button on the browser. c) The bibliographic information is imported into the Zotero application. d) The bib file is automatically updated. e) In your LaTeX text, you insert the reference by using the automatically generated cite-key (whose generation scheme is customized by you on Zotero). See? the bibliographic types or the name of the fields don't enter the workflow of the Zotero user. Instead, what is important is the fact that the reference is a preprint, the name and URL of the preprint service, etc. The bib types and field names matter only to the developers of biblatex and Zotero. I'm just asking the biblatex developers to do something about preprints so that the Zotero developers can correctly implement the translation from Zotero's At this point, the names of the types and those of the fields are more similar to the names of variables in computer programs. They are still important to the programmers, but generally, not to the community (users) any longer.
I look at an entry in Zotero. The only names I need to look at are
I don't look at the other field names, because if you see "Smith, John L.", it's clear it's the name of the author, if you see "On the semantics of field names", it's clear it's the title of the article, etc. Yes, editor names are sometimes involved, but editor names always come much later than the author names. Yes, the field name journaltitle may be very occasionally important for a journal whose name isn't familiar to you and doesn't look like the name of a journal. In this sense, and in this sense only, the name All in all, however, the names are important to the end user only when s/he hand-edits the bib database. |
|
I would like to deprecate anything that is really a state of publication or a location of publication rather than an entrytype. So, Basically we are talking about a new and backwards compatible data model for |
|
I fully applaud your proposal, naming things for what they are is a very
good start...but would you elaborate further on the proposal? For example,
what fields would identify an unpublished article if we only have @Article
to go by.
Paulo Ney
…On Fri, Mar 24, 2023 at 2:31 PM plk ***@***.***> wrote:
I would like to deprecate anything that is really a state of publication
or a location of publication rather than an entrytype. So, @Unpublished
would be deprecated and @Article would be promoted, with appropriate
fields. I don't really care how easy it is to scan the data for a human
since everything is moving to IDEs and GUIs anyway. @online is more
difficult as it covers all sorts of disparate things but @Article covers
a lot of this (web articles). We could alias @online, which is a terrible
name for a type, to @onlinemedia and have subtypes for this, for example.
Basically we are talking about a new and backwards compatible data model
for biblatex which sounds like a worthwhile project to me. It can easily
be described directly in the datamodel macros we already use in blx-dm.def,
along with compat sourcemaps in biblatex.def since we have a facility for
driver-level maps, designed for just this sort of situation. We could do a
limited time compat mode for styles which use deprecated data model
components.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1267 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAR7WYQK5JVN6YYRGKRXMD3W5YHCVANCNFSM6AAAAAAUOOMLYQ>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
I would recommend using |
|
While arxiv is semantically a preprint server, it is also used for various other kinds of outputs. One often finds lecture notes, books or conference articles there as well. Coming from this point of view, it its naturally to consider lecture notes with an So maybe the only thing one needs to change is to allow an |
|
I can see the logic of the proposal, but I think the last thing we need is
an entry type being defined by the logic of something that happens (or does
not happen) inside.
There are way too many authors that try to force a certain appearance of a
record. by:
improperly classifying it as something else
changing the information on a record to suite some specific purpose
and we ought to help by making the semantics of it easy and straightforward.
The proposal by PLK achieves that, one classify a resource for what "it is"
and the presence on the arXiv or not is marked by the fields inside.
Paulo Ney
Paulo Ney
…On Wed, Apr 5, 2023 at 3:31 AM Tobias Diez ***@***.***> wrote:
While arxiv is semantically a preprint server, it is also used for various
other kinds of outputs. One often finds lecture notes, books or conference
articles there as well. Coming from this point of view, it its naturally to
consider lecture notes with an eprint field and without a publisher as
"preprint lecture notes" (that eventually might be properly published). By
analogy, an article with an eprint field but without a journaltitle is a
"preprint article".
So maybe the only thing one needs to change is to allow an article to not
have a journaltitle, and advise styles to then treat it as a preprint.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#1267 (comment)>, or
unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AAR7WYRVRKNVWBUBQMNVX3LW7VCYFANCNFSM6AAAAAAUOOMLYQ>
.
You are receiving this because you commented.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
|
I quite like the idea of relaxing the requirement of |
|
As I said above, I'm not keen on the broadening the meaning of |
|
I also wouldn't want to broaden |
|
Hmmm, I feel that allowing |
|
It does indeed weaken the semantics of |
|
So, what's the resolution? Whatever reasonable resolution is better than no resolution. I've just looked at the other thread about preprints in this forum and found that it was initiated in 2020. It's already 2023 now. As time goes on, more and more bib entries are created using various ad-hoc schemes for preprints. When you biblatex developers publish an official scheme, some of the existing bib entries will become incompatible with the official scheme, which is unavoidable. But, it's better to do it now. [I've edited this sentence. Before it was printed in big letters. I didn't realize that "---" would result in a big font. I didn't mean to "shout" at all!] Or, do you think most preprint servers will soon go out of favor and only arXiv will remain relevant? If so, to do nothing will be an option. By the way, skimming this thread, I still don't see what the objection is to creating a new type |
|
Sorry, I haven't had a lot of time over the last few months to deal with anything but the low-hanging fruits (which this issue is most definitely not): I can't offer a good solution at the moment (and I definitely don't expect to be able to do so for the next four weeks or so). (Or rather: I haven't thought about the proposed solutions - or other possible solutions - in more detail than what I have already said in the discussion so far.) I agree that we should try and find a good solution here, but I don't think it needs to be immediately. If we move now and release a solution that is not properly thought through and that we have to go back on we might create more damage than we do good. Users should generally be able to expect backwards compatibility. So once we have documented and released something it is tricky to remove it again. From what I can see this issue has popped up once or twice before (see for example #835, not sure if that is the discussion you refer to?), but we are not exactly bombarded with feature requests in this area. This discussion has been comparatively lively for this bugtracker with six people joining in, but of course that is just a small fraction of the intended user base. |
But, damages are being created daily. You download a bib entry from a preprint server. It doesn't work with biblatex. You have to hand edit it. But you don't know what's the proper way. You search the Internet. You find multiple conflicting solutions, none of which works perfectly. You send your bib file to your publisher. They create an incorrect entry in your reference list. You have to correct it in your proof. The damages are these wasted efforts. Until a standard emerges, these wastes are being created daily somewhere in the world. Because publishers are very slow in catching up with the norm of the LaTeX community, the sooner the better. |
As the OP of another thread in this forum says, preprints are becoming more and more common. There are well-supported public preprint servers in addition to arXiv. Then, what "type" should we use for preprints?
So, it would be nice if the official Biblatex manual included a recommendation.
If you look at TeX Stackexchange, you'll see that people tend to use
@articlebut some people use@onlineor@unpublished.Here, there are a lot of ambiguities. For example, where should the name of the archive go in the
@onlinetype?organization?If you use
@article, where should the version number go?Should we include the word "preprint" in the
notefield?If there is a recommendation in the official Biblatex manual, other tools will follow it. For example, what "type" of Biblatex should Zotero's "Preprint" type correspond to when generating the .bib file?
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: