I saw Pete Binfield in person a few weeks back, and chatted about it. Low usage was the major reason, judging by our conversation--and there are more servers out there now, too, than when PeerJ preprints started.On Wed, Sep 18, 2019 at 9:04 AM Mike Taylor <sauropoda@gmail.com> wrote:Yes, I lament the forthcoming closing of PeerJ Preprints, and I'm a bit lost as to why it's happening and why Peter and Jason aren't being as forthcoming and communicative over this as they usually are. As it happens, I plan to post a PeerJ Preprint this very evening â from my SVPCA talk that is the counterpart of the Atherholt and Wedel one that launched this thread â but it will likely be my last. I like PeerJ Preprints partly just because I'm used to it, no doubt. But it does also have a bunch of neat features, including collections, comments and questions. I guess I will find out soon enough whether BiorXiv has them, too.-- Mike.On Wed, 18 Sep 2019 at 16:37, Jura <pristichampsus@yahoo.com> wrote:PeerJ Preprints is going to be closed, BTW. Nobody has so much as hinted at a reason; the official statement on PeerJ's blog just claims "the time has come", there's no way to leave comments on that post, and when I wrote an e-mail to ask, I didn't get any reaction.=============================I suspect it's because it was never all that popular. Despite the strong push from folks like the SVPOW guys, according to a Facebook convo on Nick Gardner's wall, PeerJ preprints were always a hard sell for prospective submitters. They might try funneling things towards BioRxiv or PaleorXiv in the future, especially now that there is a glut of options available to people wanting to go that route.Jason