Publishing in arXiv and other open access repository

[Kron3007]

Is this really a question in 2021?  Huh.  Well, welcome aboard the bus that has been rolling for decades now (https://arxiv.org/archive/physics started Oct 1996).

Yes, still uncharted territory in many fields.  I am only aware of one other person in my department that does it (the one who let me in on the secret).

I was initially against the idea because I had reviewed a CV where someone had them listed with their peer reviewed publications, but I see the value when it is used for the intended purpose.

[Heathcliff]

It's not completely uncharted in my field, but not a given.  I am considering releasing a preprint for the first time.  If the paper changes substantially through peer review, and you update the preprint to reflect those changes, is that considered just part of the process, or can it negatively affect how your final work is perceived?  (Example: if "too much" changes from one version to the next do readers start to doubt things like the research design or data quality?)

[fizzycist]

It's not completely uncharted in my field, but not a given.  I am considering releasing a preprint for the first time.  If the paper changes substantially through peer review, and you update the preprint to reflect those changes, is that considered just part of the process, or can it negatively affect how your final work is perceived?  (Example: if "too much" changes from one version to the next do readers start to doubt things like the research design or data quality?)

My papers have rarely changed much over the course of peer review. I can think of one example from when I was a postdoc when it did because I lucked out and managed to acquire a much nicer data set while I was in revision stage.  In that case I uploaded the revised preprint, as I typically do, and would guess that very few people noticed the major changes.

At the end of the day most ppl only read a paper once and don't keep tabs on how it evolved. Since the most recent version is the default landing page, its in your interest to upload the improved version regardless of how different it is.

But I mean, yeah, if you regularly post crappy first drafts to arxiv it will leave a bad impression. I'm assuming that is not what you mean.

[Heathcliff]

My papers have rarely changed much over the course of peer review. I can think of one example from when I was a postdoc when it did because I lucked out and managed to acquire a much nicer data set while I was in revision stage.  In that case I uploaded the revised preprint, as I typically do, and would guess that very few people noticed the major changes.

At the end of the day most ppl only read a paper once and don't keep tabs on how it evolved. Since the most recent version is the default landing page, its in your interest to upload the improved version regardless of how different it is.

But I mean, yeah, if you regularly post crappy first drafts to arxiv it will leave a bad impression. I'm assuming that is not what you mean.

That is a helpful perspective, fizzycist.  I have read some crappy drafts posted as preprints, and I definitely was not thinking of going that route.