Measuring Scientific Broadness

Authors : Tom Price, Sabine Hossenfelder

Who has not read letters of recommendations that comment on a student’s `broadness’ and wondered what to make of it?

We here propose a way to quantify scientific broadness by a semantic analysis of researchers’ publications. We apply our methods to papers on the open-access server arXiv.org and report our findings.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/1805.04647

arXiv popularity from a citation analysis point of view

Author : Alireza Noruzi

This study aims to provide an overview of the citation rate of arXiv.org since its launch in August 1991, based on the Scopus citation database. The total number of citations to arXiv in Scopus in the 26 year period was 135,782 of which the highest number of citations was 23,288 in 2016.

It is also shown that arXiv-deposited papers are highly cited by physics and astronomy, mathematics, computer science, and engineering. It can be seen that researchers from the United States, Germany, China, United Kingdom, France, and Italy cite arXiv-deposited papers more than others.

The analysis of document types indicates that articles rank first with 69% of all Scopus documents citing arXiv from 1991-2016, followed by conference papers (24.7%), reviews (3.2%), and book chapters (1.5%).

It can be concluded that arXiv is cited increasingly by different subject areas, by different languages (especially English, Chinese and French), and by various countries.

URL : http://eprints.rclis.org/31996/

The arXiv of the future will not look like the arXiv

Authors : Alberto Pepe, Matteo Cantiello, Josh Nicholson

The arXiv is the most popular preprint repository in the world. Since its inception in 1991, the arXiv has allowed researchers to freely share publication-ready articles prior to formal peer review.

The growth and the popularity of the arXiv emerged as a result of new technologies that made document creation and dissemination easy, and cultural practices where collaboration and data sharing were dominant.

The arXiv represents a unique place in the history of research communication and the Web itself, however it has arguably changed very little since its creation. Here we look at the strengths and weaknesses of arXiv in an effort to identify what possible improvements can be made based on new technologies not previously available.

Based on this, we argue that a modern arXiv might in fact not look at all like the arXiv of today.

URL : https://arxiv.org/abs/1709.07020

Automating the Horae: Boundary-work in the age of computers

Author : Luis Reyes-Galindo

This paper describes the intense software filtering that has allowed the arXiv eprint repository to sort and process large numbers of submissions with minimal human intervention, making it one of the most important and influential cases of open access repositories to date.

The paper narrates arXiv’s transformation, using sophisticated sorting-filtering algorithms to decrease human workload, from a small mailing list used by a few hundred researchers to a site that processes thousands of papers per month.

However there are significant negative consequences for authors who have been filtered out of the main categories. There is thus a continued need to check and balance arXiv’s boundaries, based in the essential tension between stability and innovation.

URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1603.03824

 

Choosing Collaboration Partners. How Scientific Success in Physics Depends on Network Positions

Authors : Raphael H. Heiberger, Oliver J. Wieczorek

Physics is one of the most successful endeavors in science. Being a prototypic big science it also reflects the growing tendency for scientific collaborations. Utilizing 250,000 papers from ArXiv.org a prepublishing platform prevalent in Physics we construct large coauthorship networks to investigate how individual network positions influence scientific success.

In this context, success is seen as getting a paper published in high impact journals of physical subdisciplines as compared to not getting it published at all or in rather peripheral journals only.

To control the nested levels of authors and papers, and to consider the time elapsing between working paper and prominent journal publication we employ multilevel eventhistory models with various network measures as covariates. Our results show that the maintenance of even a moderate number of persistent ties is crucial for scientific success.

Also, even with low volumes of social capital Physicists who occupy brokerage positions enhance their chances of articles in high impact journals significantly. Surprisingly, inter(sub)disciplinary collaborations decrease the probability of getting a paper published in specialized journals for almost all positions.

URL : http://arxiv.org/abs/1608.03251

arXiv@25: Key findings of a user survey

Authors : Oya Y. Rieger, Gail Steinhart, Deborah Cooper

As part of its 25th anniversary vision-setting process, the arXiv team at Cornell University Library conducted a user survey in April 2016 to seek input from the global user community about arXiv’s current services and future directions.

We were heartened to receive 36,000 responses from 127 countries, representing arXiv’s diverse, global community. The prevailing message is that users are happy with the service as it currently stands, with 95 percent of survey respondents indicating they are very satisfied or satisfied with arXiv.

Furthermore, 72 percent of respondents indicated that arXiv should continue to focus on its main purpose, which is to quickly make available scientific papers, and this will be enough to sustain the value of arXiv in the future.

This theme was pervasively reflected in the open text comments; a significant number of respondents suggested remaining focused on the core mission and enabling arXiv’s partners and related service providers to continue to build new services and innovations on top of arXiv.

URL : arXiv@25: Key findings of a user survey

Alternative location : http://arxiv.org/abs/1607.08212

Beams of Particles and Papers. The Role of Preprint Archives in High Energy Physics

In high energy physics scholarly papers circulate primarily through online preprint archives based on a centralized repository, arXiv.org, that physicists simply refer to as ‘the archive.’ This is not a tool for preservation and memory, but rather a space of flows where written objects are detected and then disappear, and their authors made available for scrutiny.

In this work I analyse the reading and publishing practices of two subsets of particle physicists, theorists and experimentalists. In order to be recognized as legitimate and productive members of their community, physicists need to abide by the temporalities and authorial practices structured by the archive. Theorists live in a state of accelerated time that shapes their reading and publishing practices around a 24 hour cycle.

Experimentalists resolve to tactics that allow them to circumvent the slowed-down time and invisibility they experience as members of large collaborations. As digital archives for the exchange of preprint articles emerge in other scientific fields, physics could help shed light on general transformations of contemporary scholarly communication systems.

URL : Beams of Particles and Papers. The Role of Preprint Archives in High Energy Physics

Alternative location : http://arxiv.org/abs/1602.08539