The full title of this case study is 'Using pre-prints to promote controversial findings: Challenging the principle that everyone has insatiable economic wants'.
Summary
We posted a pre-print of an unpublished manuscript after several failed attempts at journal publication. This was my first pre-print, and the decision was influenced by the topic, (frustrating) publication attempts, and overcoming some (mostly irrational) fears.
Context
Our research examined a foundational economic principle that is inherently psychological – whether everyone has insatiable (ever-increasing) economic wants. This principle sits in a problematic intersection between economics and psychology – economists typically just assume is true, and psychologists do not study it. We re-examined one of the only datasets claimed to provide evidence for insatiability, based on highly selective used of the data. We showed that when all the data is examined insatiability is not supported – while some people’s wants are likely insatiable, evidence falls well short of universality. This has consequences for the basis of modern economics, as well as for pressing issues such as sustainability.
Reflections
The widely divergent reactions of reviewers/editors to our five journal submissions suggested that a pre-print may be the only way to get this research into the public domain. For example, a psychology journal editor declined publication due to being unlikely to find reviewers as it was of no interest to psychologists. One editor opined that this data/measures were relevant only when they supported insatiability, but not when they did not. Others disagreed with each other – some would treat insatiability as obviously true (so the findings could not be right), others as obviously false (so the findings were not interesting). Feeling increasingly sceptical about publication, we used a pre-print to just get the research out.
A source of reluctance about posting pre-prints has been that journal editors don’t like it – any research “buzz” should be linked to their journal. There are exceptions, and positive reactions to pre-prints can help publication chances by creating their own buzz. But for that (social) media strategies are critical, e.g. professional videos and a strong social media presence/links. For those of us without a substantial social media presence/interest, it’s really important to be able to access University support to help with this.
Another source of pre-print reluctance is “scooping” by others who take the idea/data and publish the findings before us. Rationally this makes little sense – posting pre-prints should establish primacy. But academia (and publication) is political, and it’s likely that no-one will care about an obscure pre-print over a publication. Based on previous experiences it’s hard to let go of this fear, but ultimately the decision came down to whether the research would get out at all.
Take-home message
Pre-prints have some potential benefits that are under-utilised. One is allowing open commentary and discussion on pre-print websites. One journal allows public posting of its reviews, which is useful to publicly address misunderstandings and other issues. “Reviewer 2” may yet be stopped (…even if after the fact). But many pre-print sites don’t allow this, so we’re trying to work out how best to post reviews and responses.
Overall, while posting pre-prints is simple, using this tool effectively requires some learning and development for those without strong networks and media skills.
About the author
Paul Bain is a Reader in the Department of Psychology. After completing a Commerce degree and working at a business school, his research interests shifted towards social and cultural psychology. He is especially interested in people’s beliefs about the nature of humans and society, and processes of cultural change. He applies these ideas to current social and political issues such as climate change and sustainability.
Links
- You can read the pre-print here: www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/301038