I just got done uploading a manuscript to the PeerJ Preprint server.  It was awesome! This was a manuscript that was outside even the loosest of definitions of quantitative biology, and therefore not appropriate for arXiv.

I am really keen to see biologists using preprint servers, and up until now, where to send non quant. manuscripts was a bit of a problem. Sure, researchers could (and sometime do) host pre-review manuscripts on their own website, but this is problematic for a few reasons.  While I’m not getting into the details here, the issue of visibility (and having a DOI) is huge– how should people find interesting manuscripts? A centralized repository like arXiv or PeerJ is crucial!

Now that the PeerJ preprint server is up and running, it’s up to us to keep it going. I like arXiv for a number of reasons (also, it’s more established), but the PeerJ Preprint server has a few major advantages– commenting (which may fill the role Haldane’s sieve currently fills for arXiv papers), speed (article visible within a few hours), social media integration, and article level metrics (at least basic metrics).

So, the question is this– where to send my NEXT preprint?? Do I send to arXiv, or to PeerJ.. I guess I’m kind of leaning towards PeerJ, unless somebody has a good argument against it.

P.S. I guess there are 3 things that concern me:

1. What happens to preprints if PeerJ folds– are they lost in the bowels of the internets?
2. Will Journals consider PeerJ preprints equivalent to those posted on arXiv?
3. Does Google Scholar index PeerJ preprints? (I think the answer is Yes)