[kgwgk]

> arxiv was about distribution. It didn't replace peer review - articles were still submitted to journals and published there too.

I'm surprised that they no longer use the term "preprint" at all, at least it's nowhere to be found on the homepage or "about" section.

The consequences of this amnesia are hilarious: https://twitter.com/gustavnilsonne/status/138948729731431219...

> Why do we call it "preprints"? The term seems to imply that work is preliminary or unfinished. As far as I can tell, the term introduced by @arxiv , the first online repository for scientific manuscripts, is "e-print". Is "preprint" a marketing device invented by publishers?

[monkeyjoe]

I think it's because the publisher retains copyright. There is a limit on how "done" the manuscript can be and still be shared for free online. Some universities have started to fight back against this by limiting the scope of copyright restrictions that publishers can impose.

[krastanov]

No, in most of physics there is no such limit in practice. The only difference between my published work and the preprint arxiv versions is the font and whether the layout is two columns or one column. They are word-for-word identical with identical figures.

[bee_rider]

Is it possible that you broke the rules of your journal, but nobody mothers going after a single researcher?

[kgwgk]

I'm not krastanov and everything is possible, but many publishers do not have such rules: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_academic_publishers_by...

[krastanov]

In my particular case, no, there were no pro-forma rules broken.