When a preprint (e.g. posted on bioRxiv.org) manuscript is in paperpile and then gets published in a traditional journal, paperpile will recognize the published version as the same as the preprint, and will not allow 1) PDF upload through the chrome extension, or 2) metadata update through the web interface.
If my goal is to save the final published version, a current workaround is to 1) delete the preprint version, 2) save to paperpile the final version; 3) attach the preprint PDF as a secondary file.
I would suggest to either keep preprint and published versions distinct (in fact they often end up being quite different, even if they have the same title and authors), or to allow the user to add the published pdf to the current paperpile record as either primary or secondary pdf.
I’m with giovanni on this, it would be great to be able to store preprints alongside the subsequent journal publication.
However, I also have a probably easier suggestion for a workaround. For me it is usually enough to change the preprint title from “Title” to “Preprint: Title” for paperpile to allow me to add the journal publication to my library as well…
Yes, better integration of pre-prints and accepted articles is essential. I love how it supports pre-prints, this is also essential, but when citing a pre-print that has now been published, we need to be able to do that in an efficient and easy way.
I can see how that would be useful. I’ve tagged it with “under-review” which means we are thinking about that if/when/how to best make this happen.
It would be nice if, for example, there was a button that would just search for the published paper using the info from the preprint. That would save a few steps in manually adding the published paper.
No updates yet, I’m afraid. We have not been able to prioritize this topic; we understand it would be a very convenient addition to our features and hope to come up with solutions in the near future.
Our current focus is releasing mobile/desktop apps and other internal projects, after which we hope to start implementing improvements and new features.
I would suggest the other way around for the best of both worlds because arXiv tends to host a more comprehensive version (usually including the supplemental material at least seen in ML/AI fields) than the published one due to page limit. So for citation, the source had better be auto updated once published but for the PDF document, the comprehensive version could be preferred or at least allow to choose.
Are there any updates for this yet? It is a big inconvenience having to manually replace pdfs when the journal version comes out. When the issue was raised this was perhaps a minor issue, but almost all my initial reading now is preprints and it’s a lot of papers to update manually. At least for my use cases it may soon make sense to move away from Paperpile if it isn’t addressed.
You folks seem to have it made! When an arXiv paper gets into an NLP venue, there’s no way at all to replace the entry from the preprint to the ACL anthology one, and the quickest way seems to be to add the published one, manually copy all metadata (labels, notes, etc.) from the arXiv one, and then remove it… Can some support be added please?
I need to have the published journal paper displayed, but instead paperpile always reverts back to the old arxiv version – super annoying, why is this !!!
i have to go through a bunch of steps to expunge the arxiv ppr , though any google doc that is recompiled when still including the ghost arxiv ppr seems to resurrect the ghost reference back into the main paperpile file.
pls fix this! either USE THE LATEST VERSION by default (I thought that’s what “auto-update meant”!!) or let us choose !!
bump. any update on this? woudl really like a way to automatically merge preprint → published papers so papers and grants can easily reflect the most up to date citation info. any news?
Thanks for the bump, @joshrbaxter. No news on this front, unfortunately – I realize it’s been 2 years since I said the same thing but we’ve simply lacked the resources to prioritize this matter so far (and we’re prone to delays!). It is still very much on our radar, though, along with many other relevant topics we hope to tackle.
The good news is that we’re nearing a point in our development (by rewriting our extension and webapp) which will make it more feasible for us to implement this sort of improvement. Feel free to check out our roadmap to see what’s currently on the pipeline.
Here for the same issue. When I choose the published paper when adding a reference, it auto corrects to the preprint. Have deleted the preprint from the document and my paperpile. Still does it. One have to be aware cos its automatically reversed to the preprint.
Welcome to our forum, @Kristine_Bohmann! Are you working/citing in Google Docs? If so, please click the top menu option Paperpile > View all references (or gear icon > Manage references if you’re using the optional sidebar add-on) and delete the reference from the page that opens. After that, reformat and try inserting again. Let me know if that doesn’t do the trick, or if you’re doing something else entirely.
Just ran into this and really shocked such a basic feature isn’t supported. It would be good to have a timeline as not appropriately dealing with preprints is a bit of a deal breaker for me.
Welcome to the community, @sam_abbott! Thank you for your feedback. We understand that this is an issue in biomedical fields, and we would like to have a good solution eventually. However, it is not trivial to implement, and we are currently prioritizing the rewrite of the web app (this thread has an update from our CEO on its status). Once that is done, our dev team can consider requests like this one.
> Manage references if you’re using the optional