Need to appeal arXiv rejection of the novel vaccines manuscript about covid19-review HOT 23 CLOSED

OK, the paper is formally accepted now! I will update the ticket. We may want to send an email before jumping ship completely.

from covid19-review.

Hi all, I just heard back! It seems like I made a mistake on the initial submission. They let me fix it now, so fingers crossed that we will be approved! I'm so sorry about this, I will triple-check future submissions.

from covid19-review.

@RLordan No news!!! I actually checked yesterday to see if there was any movement, and then immediately after being disappointed heard the good news from the journal!

from covid19-review.

The author order was fixed in v2

from covid19-review.

Hey @rando2 … that decision baffles me…

nothing to add really, the response is reasonable to me and well written. You could include an example of a similar paper they accepted outside our group as another example of you so wish but it isn’t necessary. Very unusual.

from covid19-review.

That's surprising and disappointing. I'm optimistic about the appeal.

My advice is to focus on 1) all the precedent set by our prior accepted preprints (especially the recent traditional vaccines paper) and 2) the automation that makes this unique and relevant for the arXiv audience. 1) is very well covered already. You could add a sentence or two about 2).

from covid19-review.

Thank you both! I made changes (in bold) based on your suggestions.

from covid19-review.

Thank you both! I made changes (in bold) based on your suggestions.

Thanks Halie, reads very well. Fingers crossed

from covid19-review.

Looks good to me

from covid19-review.

@rando2 any updates on the appeal? Did the moderators make a decision one way or the other?

from covid19-review.

@agitter No update yet! I submitted everything to mSystems this week without the preprint, since it seemed better to move on it than wait for the vaccines world to change again. I still need to update #1176

from covid19-review.

Good decision to go ahead and submit to the journal.

from covid19-review.

Glad to see reviewer reports have arrived in, they are positive, I assume Arxiv have not given a decision?

from covid19-review.

@rando2 no worries, yes the journal was a pleasant review. Let me know if you want help with anything.

from covid19-review.

Should we start to consider a backup plan? Now that this has been resubmitted and the revisions were minor, it could be accepted at the journal fairly quickly.

https://arxiv.org/help/moderation/appeals notes

Most appeals are resolved within a two week period, but some may take longer. If you have not heard from arXiv within two weeks of receiving the notification that your appeal has been received, please feel free to reach out to us for a status update through the appropriate contact channel, [email protected].

I don't want to hassle the moderators, who are academics volunteering their time. However, one idea would be to politely ask if they are close to a decision. If they are not, we could withdraw from arXiv and preprint elsewhere before the journal publication appears.

If it comes to that, after skimming https://asapbio.org/preprint-servers OSF Preprints looks most appealing. I haven't used it though so I would be open to other suggestions.

from covid19-review.

I think a back up plan is fair. Considering the comments, I would expect a quick decision. I don't think there is any harm in asking politely if a decision is close.

from covid19-review.

Is it worth pre-printing at all given that mSystems is open-access and the decision is (apparently) close? I guess the ability to update preprints more rapidly is appealing, but at this point I wonder how likely that is.

from covid19-review.

@cbrueffer it's a good point. The benefits are minor now that the paper has been accepted and the journal is open access. Possible reasons to still preprint are:

• @cgreene and I preprint (almost) everything our labs write as a policy/habit.
• Share the snapshot of the manuscript quickly while it is all up to date. The pathogenesis manuscript took almost exactly a month from acceptance to posting at the journal website.
• With arXiv we have the ability to push updates for smaller changes that don't require a formal journal correction or a major peer-reviewed next version journal submission.
• Consistency across the COVID-19 project.

@rando2 please do send the polite email and let us know if you hear back.

from covid19-review.

Closed by https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.07247 Thanks for getting this posted @rando2.

For the sake of tagging different versions, which version of the manuscript did you submit to arXiv?

from covid19-review.

@agitter I sent them the version in #1182 because I thought that would make things easier!

from covid19-review.

@rando2 the arXiv metadata has the consortium author in a different order than the preprint. I'm not sure if we can fix that without submitting another version. Maybe that is only worth doing if we want to send v2 to arXiv?

from covid19-review.

@agitter That is really odd, I usually copy it directly out of the docx and it's correct there! It seems like it would require submitting a new version to change it. Presumably there will be a few more changes in the coming weeks during the editorial process, so perhaps it would make the most sense to fix it then?

from covid19-review.

Yes, let's leave it for now. If we make more small changes during the proofing process, we can submit another version to arXiv with those changes as you suggest.

from covid19-review.