PaperlayerView exact revision on arXiv

Source-linked AI summary

arXiv e-prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships

Vincent Lariviere, Cassidy R. Sugimoto, Benoit Macaluso, Stasa Milojevic, Blaise Cronin, Mike Thelwall

arXiv:1306.3261v1cs.DL

TL;DR

Comprehensive comparative evidence on arXiv and WoS had been lacking, leaving their relationship in scholarly communication an open question. This paper combines the full datasets and finds arXiv increasingly serves as an alerting service and archive of first resort, while journal publication remains important.

  • Problem

    A comparative analysis combining all of arXiv and WoS had yet to be done, leaving the relationship between these forms of scholarly communication an open question.

    Source: Introduction · pp. 2–3

  • Method

    The paper combines the entire arXiv repository with the entire WoS database to examine scholarly communication.

    Source: Introduction · p. 3

  • Results

    In physics, the vast majority of WoS-indexed journal papers are on arXiv, which increasingly acts as an alerting service and archive of first resort.

    Source: Conclusion · pp. 25–26

  • Takeaways & Limitations

    Publication in a journal of record remains a demonstrably important goal for most scientists.

    Source: Conclusion · p. 26

    A publishing model that works in one field may not translate to another.

    Source: Introduction · p. 2

Abstract

from arXiv · show

Since its creation in 1991, arXiv has become central to the diffusion of research in a number of fields. Combining data from the entirety of arXiv and the Web of Science (WoS), this paper investigates (a) the proportion of papers across all disciplines that are on arXiv and the proportion of arXiv papers that are in the WoS, (b) elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication, and (c) the aging characteristics and scientific impact of arXiv e-prints and their published version. It shows that the proportion of WoS papers found on arXiv varies across the specialties of physics and mathematics, and that only a few specialties make extensive use of the repository. Elapsed time between arXiv submission and journal publication has shortened but remains longer in mathematics than in physics. In physics, mathematics, as well as in astronomy and astrophysics, arXiv versions are cited more promptly and decay faster than WoS papers. The arXiv versions of papers - both published and unpublished - have lower citation rates than published papers, although there is almost no difference in the impact of the arXiv versions of both published and unpublished papers.

Introduction

The paper combines comprehensive arXiv and Web of Science data to examine the relationship between repository and journal publication. It also addresses the unsettled terminology around preprints and e-prints.

Introduction

  • The study asks whether preprints and journals can coexist, amid advocacy that repositories could eventually displace scholarly journals.Some advocates also proposed ways peer review might function on repository platforms.Source: Introduction · p. 2
  • The authors caution that a publishing model that works in one field may not translate to another.They note that relatively few scholars use preprints extensively, with physicists and mathematicians as notable exceptions.Source: Introduction · p. 2
  • Prior arXiv research examined repository use, ordering and citation rates, coexistence with journals, and effects on citations.Source: Introduction · p. 3
  • The paper combines the entire arXiv repository with the entire WoS database for a comparative analysis.The authors identify the lack of such a combined analysis in prior work.Source: Introduction · p. 3
  • It examines arXiv coverage, elapsed time to journal publication, and the aging and scientific impact of e-prints versus journal versions.The impact analysis uses papers published in astronomy and physics, disciplines with a long history of preprint use.Source: Introduction · pp. 2–3

Background

  • An e-print can refer to electronic pre- or post-prints, while a preprint is described as submitted for publication but not yet printed.Source: Terminology · pp. 3–4

Advantages and disadvantages

The section outlines the reach and contested role of electronic preprints, alongside the services and infrastructure that support their use.

Advantages and disadvantages

  • Electronic preprint publication reaches an audience orders of magnitude larger than traditional sharing among friends and colleagues.In one respect, it can substitute for journal publication in getting research to readers.Source: Advantages and disadvantages · p. 5
  • A concern is that preprint servers disseminate manuscripts without peer review, with potential life-threatening implications in medicinal, pharmaceutical, and biological chemistry.Source: Advantages and disadvantages · p. 5
  • Supporters emphasize openness and speed, while some argue that professional reputation discourages poorly developed submissions.The cited positions differ on whether peer review is necessary for repository manuscripts.Source: Advantages and disadvantages · p. 6
  • arXiv's ecosystem includes ADS indexing, SPIRES citation and discovery functions, and OAI-based proposals for repository-centered peer review.ADS added astrophysics e-prints in 1997 and included all arXiv categories in 2002.Source: arXiv and related platforms · p. 7
  • A survey found that nearly 90% of high-energy physicists rely on SPIRES and arXiv as their point of entry to the literature.Source: arXiv and related platforms · p. 7

Other preprint repositories

The examples show that subject repositories had varied outcomes, while some initiatives instead partnered with or endorsed arXiv.

Other preprint repositories

  • Few other preprint repositories were as successful as arXiv; the AMS suspended its mathematics repository and endorsed arXiv for mathematics e-prints.Source: Other preprint repositories · p. 7
  • The Chemistry Preprint Server ended after four years, while biology and computer science initiatives added fields to or partnered with arXiv.Source: Other preprint repositories · p. 8
  • The DOE network contained 5.5 million e-prints, whereas Chinese Science Paper Online required some government-funded authors to submit working papers and still had limited impact.The DOE network also served as a gateway to more than 35,500 websites and databases.Source: Other preprint repositories · p. 8

Empirical investigations of arXiv

Earlier studies found that arXiv use and its relationship with citation impact, readership, and journal versions varied across fields and studies.

Empirical investigations of arXiv

  • Prior research found that the share of journal literature also in arXiv ranged from almost 100% in high-energy physics to 18.5% in mathematics.Source: Empirical investigations of arXiv · p. 9
  • Articles deposited in arXiv were reported to receive more citations than articles not deposited, with early-view, quality-bias, and open-access explanations proposed.Evidence supported a quality bias, but little or no support was found for an open-access advantage.Source: Empirical investigations of arXiv · p. 9
  • Evidence for an early-view effect was mixed: some studies found earlier reading and citing of deposited papers, while another found no such effect.Source: Empirical investigations of arXiv · p. 9
  • In one study, six-month arXiv download counts reliably predicted citation impact at two years, and the authors said dissemination accelerated the read-cite-read cycle.Source: Empirical investigations of arXiv · p. 10
  • Studies disagreed about the relationship between arXiv e-prints and publisher versions; one found e-print reads fell near zero after journal publication and e-prints had shorter half-lives.Source: Empirical investigations of arXiv · p. 10
  • The authors say that the precise effects of e-prints on scientific communication remain unclear and present comprehensive arXiv and WoS comparison as a way to clarify them.Source: Empirical investigations of arXiv · p. 10

Methods

The study linked arXiv and Web of Science records to examine publication and citation relationships, using staged document matching. Matching found 474,011 of 744,583 arXiv e-prints in WoS, while the bibliographic criteria could miss works with substantially changed records.

Methods

  • Using arXiv metadata from 1990 to March 22, 2012 (744,583 e-prints), the study linked e-prints to published versions indexed in WoS and to citations they received there.Source: Methods · p. 10
  • Initial matching linked arXiv e-prints to published counterparts through direct title correspondence, title-and-journal fuzzy matching, or title-and-first-author fuzzy matching; these links were then automatically validated by abstract similarity.Source: Methods · pp. 10–11
  • Expanded matching applied author, journal, publication-delay, and title-similarity criteria, then DOI matching added 13,129 documents.The expanded criteria included delays from -1 to +5 years and title-similarity thresholds of 90%, or 60% when author counts matched.Source: Methods · p. 11
  • 474,011 of 744,583 arXiv e-prints (63.7%) matched to a WoS-indexed journal article, note, or review.The analysis covered 1995–2011, with citation and matching records compiled through the end of 2012.Source: Methods · pp. 10–11
  • Matching required shared bibliographic properties rather than merely shared scientific content, so the method underestimates arXiv content later found in WoS journals.Material changes to authorship, title, or abstract could prevent a pair from being treated as the same document.Source: Methods · pp. 11–12
  • For citation analyses, WoS references to arXiv e-prints were matched by arXiv identifiers, and documents were grouped by publication and archiving status.The groups distinguished unpublished e-prints, published e-prints, journal articles also archived on arXiv, and journal articles never on arXiv.Source: Methods · p. 12

Proportion of ArXiv e-prints published in WoS journals

About 64% of arXiv e-prints were found in WoS-indexed journals, but publication shares differed by specialty. The share remained above 73% for 1995–2006 and was remarkably stable across those years.

Proportion of ArXiv e-prints published in WoS journals

  • About 64% of arXiv can be found in the WoS; Figure 1 presents the proportion of arXiv e-prints published as papers and indexed in WoS-indexed journals by arXiv specialty.Source: Proportion of ArXiv e-prints published… · p. 12, Figure 1 · p. 14
  • The share of e-prints published in WoS journals varies by subfield: about 80% in condensed-matter physics, 70% in theoretical nuclear and high-energy physics, around 45% in mathematics, quantitative finance, and statistics, and less than 20% in computer science.Source: Proportion of ArXiv e-prints published… · pp. 12–13
  • More than 73% of arXiv e-prints from 1995–2006 reached a WoS journal, and this share remained remarkably stable despite increased WoS coverage.The paper describes the most recent years as an exception, likely reflecting publication delays and increased submissions in fields with lower WoS publication shares.Source: Proportion of ArXiv e-prints published… · p. 13
  • The authors suggest that other diffusion modes and treating arXiv as the final diffusion format together accounted for slightly more than 25% of e-prints.They report that these modes remained stable over the period discussed.Source: Proportion of ArXiv e-prints published… · p. 13

Proportion of WoS papers on arXiv

The share of WoS papers found on arXiv was small overall but concentrated in a few specialties, while publication delays shortened over time. Physics specialties had shorter average delays than mathematics, with astronomy and astrophysics also among the shortest.

Proportion of WoS papers on arXiv

Proportion of WoS papers’ cited references made to arXiv e-prints

The share of WoS references pointing to arXiv varies sharply across disciplines and specialties, with nuclear and particle physics especially prominent. Cited arXiv e-prints are younger than cited material overall, though missing references likely make their citation impact an underestimate.

Proportion of WoS papers’ cited references made to arXiv e-prints

  • Physics had the highest disciplinary proportion of WoS cited references made to arXiv e-prints.The specialty-level panel also shows marked variation, with nuclear and particle physics substantially ahead of other specialties.Source: Proportion of WoS papers’ cited… · p. 18
  • 6.6% of references in nuclear and particle physics journals cited arXiv e-prints, while the leading other specialties remained below 1.5%.Physics had the highest disciplinary share at 1.4% in 2011, followed by mathematics at 1% and earth and space science at 0.2%.Source: Proportion of WoS papers’ cited… · p. 18

Caveat

  • References to arXiv e-prints likely are undercounted because references within arXiv documents were unavailable.The authors presume arXiv e-prints themselves would contain a higher proportion of references to other e-prints.Source: Proportion of WoS papers’ cited… · p. 19

Aging characteristics

Aging characteristics and scientific impact

The section compares arXiv e-prints and journal-published papers by citation impact and aging across physics, mathematics, and astronomy and astrophysics. ArXiv versions have lower citation rates than published papers, but published and unpublished arXiv versions have almost identical impact.

Physics and mathematics

Scientific impact

  • WoS versions of arXiv e-prints have the highest short-term impact, while their advantage over WoS papers not on arXiv is stable in physics and narrowing in mathematics.In astronomy and astrophysics, the mean impact of WoS versions of arXiv e-prints has approached that of other WoS papers.Source: Aging characteristics and scientific… · pp. 21, 23
  • ArXiv versions have lower citation rates than published papers, with almost no impact difference between published and unpublished arXiv versions.The authors note that citations may shift from an e-print to its published version, potentially making their impacts appear more comparable.Source: Aging characteristics and scientific… · p. 21

Astronomy and astrophysics

  • Astronomy and astrophysics saw a considerable increase in papers appearing both on arXiv and in journals, alongside a decline in journal-only papers.The number of papers appearing only on arXiv increased slightly.Source: Aging characteristics and scientific… · p. 23
  • Among distinct astronomy and astrophysics documents in 2010, 59% appeared both on arXiv and in WoS, 16% only on arXiv, and 25% only in WoS.The number published both on arXiv and in journals increased; papers published only on arXiv increased slightly, while papers published only in journals declined.Source: Aging characteristics and scientific… · p. 23

Aging characteristics

  • Citations to e-prints peak the year after submission, while citations to journal papers are similar during the two years after publication.E-print citations decay faster for versions of published papers than for unpublished e-prints; arXiv-only e-prints decay more slowly, but not as slowly as WoS papers.Source: Aging characteristics and scientific… · p. 24

Conclusion

ArXiv and peer-reviewed journals continue to coexist, but repository use varies across specialties. ArXiv versions are cited more promptly, while published versions retain higher citation rates.

Conclusion

  • In most physics and mathematics specialties, fewer than one-third of WoS papers are found on arXiv.Even in these disciplines, a significant number of papers are not on arXiv.Source: Conclusion · p. 25
  • 93% of WoS-published arXiv e-prints are published in mathematics, physics, or earth and space sciences.ArXiv use outside these fields is increasing but remains marginal.Source: Conclusion · p. 25
  • Elapsed time from arXiv submission to WoS-indexed journal publication has decreased, but remains shorter in physics specialties than in mathematics.The paper suggests possible explanations for the decrease, including faster publication processes, fast-publishing journals, and researchers waiting to submit until acceptance or publication.Source: Conclusion · p. 25
  • In astronomy and astrophysics, arXiv versions are cited more promptly and decay faster than WoS papers, but WoS versions of arXiv e-prints have the highest citation rates.The citation-rate difference between those WoS versions and other WoS papers is decreasing.Source: Conclusion · p. 26
  • ArXiv versions of both published and unpublished papers have lower citation rates, yet their impact differs little by publication status.Pre-publication and unpublished e-print citations raise questions about peer review’s function in these fields (Brody, Harnad, and Carr, 2006).Source: Conclusion · p. 26
  • Researchers continue to communicate through a mix of arXiv and journal outlets; arXiv increasingly serves as an alerting service and archive of first resort, while journal publication remains important.Adoption is nuanced and varies across disciplines and physics specialties.Source: Conclusion · p. 26

Related papers

Loading 1306.3261v1…