What is the scope for the contents in EarthArXiv
Question: Should EarthArXiv accept papers that are interesting for the Earth sciences but are non-standard in the sense that they may not be “preprints” as they are not really designed to be submitted later as science artifacts (although they might get published as a part of the editorial side of a science journal)? For example: aspirational essays on how changes to standard work flows might lead to new discoveries, critiques of how Earth data formats are sharable, theoretical essays on meta-science issues such as the impact of open science practices for Earth science.
EarthArXiv could be a great home for these. But does their inclusion affect how the archive is perceived as a place where “real science” is found?
Myself, I think the perception issue is misplaced. In my view, the service is designed to hold and expose (through search) all content that might be of value for the Earth (and Space) sciences. Nobody is reading the archive as a journal. Since we don’t have a paper product, we don’t need to be careful about the amount of content that gets included.
Perhaps EarthArXiv can be a leader in opening up the notion of “publication” as a first-step, and not a final step in research, and can be a home for content that might be excluded from existing forms of science journals.
What are your thoughts?