Difference between revisions of "Sarabipour 2018 Nature"
(Created page with "{{Publication |title=Sarabipour S (2018) Preprints are good for science and good for the public. Nature 560:553. |info=[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30158619 PMID:...") |
|||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{MitoFit page name}} | |||
{{Publication | {{Publication | ||
|title=Sarabipour S (2018) Preprints are good for science and good for the public. Nature 560:553. | |title=Sarabipour S (2018) Preprints are good for science and good for the public. Nature 560:553. | ||
|info=[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30158619 PMID: | |info=[https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30158619 PMID: 30158619 Open Access] | ||
|authors=Sarabipour S | |authors=Sarabipour S | ||
|year=2018 | |year=2018 | ||
|journal=Nature | |journal=Nature | ||
|abstract=We disagree with Tom Sheldon’s contention that the preprint ecosystem can present a challenge to accurate and timely journalism (Nature 559, 445; 2018). Restricting when or how preprints are released risks suppressing science communication without any clear advantage to the public. When scientists and journalists follow fundamental principles for reporting research results — such as ensuring that publications are rigorously sourced and fact-checked — preprints pose no greater risk to the public’s understanding of science than do peer-reviewed articles (Sarabipour S et al PeerJ Preprints 6, e27098v1; 2018). | |||
|keywords=Preprints | |||
|editor=[[Gnaiger E]], | |||
}} | |||
{{Labeling | |||
|additional=Preprints, | |||
}} | }} | ||
Latest revision as of 02:19, 26 February 2019
Sarabipour 2018 Nature
| Sarabipour S (2018) Preprints are good for science and good for the public. Nature 560:553. |
Sarabipour S (2018) Nature
Abstract: We disagree with Tom Sheldon’s contention that the preprint ecosystem can present a challenge to accurate and timely journalism (Nature 559, 445; 2018). Restricting when or how preprints are released risks suppressing science communication without any clear advantage to the public. When scientists and journalists follow fundamental principles for reporting research results — such as ensuring that publications are rigorously sourced and fact-checked — preprints pose no greater risk to the public’s understanding of science than do peer-reviewed articles (Sarabipour S et al PeerJ Preprints 6, e27098v1; 2018). • Keywords: Preprints • Bioblast editor: Gnaiger E
Labels:
Preprints
