Positional Effects on Citation and Readership in arXiv

arXiv.org mediates contact with the literature for entire scholarly communities, both through provision of archival access and through daily email and web announcements of new materials, potentially many screenlengths long. We confirm and extend a surprising correlation between article position in these initial announcements, ordered by submission time, and later citation impact, due primarily to intentional "self-promotion" on the part of authors. A pure "visibility" effect was also present: the subset of articles accidentally in early positions fared measurably better in the long-term citation record than those lower down. Astrophysics articles announced in position 1, for example, overall received a median number of citations 83\% higher, while those there accidentally had a 44\% visibility boost. For two large subcommunities of theoretical high energy physics, hep-th and hep-ph articles announced in position 1 had median numbers of citations 50\% and 100\% larger than for positions 5--15, and the subsets there accidentally had visibility boosts of 38\% and 71\%. We also consider the positional effects on early readership. The median numbers of early full text downloads for astro-ph, hep-th, and hep-ph articles announced in position 1 were 82\%, 61\%, and 58\% higher than for lower positions, respectively, and those there accidentally had medians visibility-boosted by 53\%, 44\%, and 46\%. Finally, we correlate a variety of readership features with long-term citations, using machine learning methods, thereby extending previous results on the predictive power of early readership in a broader context. We conclude with some observations on impact metrics and dangers of recommender mechanisms.Comment: 28 pages, to appear in JASIS

Last but not Least: Additional Positional Effects on Citation and Readership in arXiv

We continue investigation of the effect of position in announcements of newly received articles, a single day artifact, with citations received over the course of ensuing years. Earlier work [arXiv:0907.4740, arXiv:0805.0307] focused on the "visibility" effect for positions near the beginnings of announcements, and on the "self-promotion" effect associated to authors intentionally aiming for these positions, with both found correlated to a later enhanced citation rate. Here we consider a "reverse-visibility" effect for positions near the ends of announcements, and on a "procrastination" effect associated to submissions made within the 20 minute period just before the daily deadline. For two large subcommunities of theoretical high energy physics, we find a clear "reverse-visibility" effect, in which articles near the ends of the lists receive a boost in both short-term readership and long-term citations, almost comparable in size to the "visibility" effect documented earlier. For one of those subcommunities, we find an additional "procrastination" effect, in which last position articles submitted shortly before the deadline have an even higher citation rate than those that land more accidentally in that position. We consider and eliminate geographic effects as responsible for the above, and speculate on other possible causes, including "oblivious" and "nightowl" effects.Comment: 13p, appeared JASIST on-line first (12 Oct 2010

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

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.Comment: 29 pages, 11 figure

arXiv popularity from a citation analysis point of view

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

Citations to arXiv Preprints by Indexed Journals and their Impact on Research Evaluation

[EN] This article shows an approach to the study of two fundamental aspects of the prepublication of scientific manuscripts in specialized repositories (arXiv). The first refers to the size of the interaction of ¿standard papers¿ in journals appearing in the Web of Science (WoS) ¿ now Clarivate Analytics ¿ and ¿non-standard papers¿ (manuscripts appearing in arXiv). Specifically, we analyze the citations found in the WoS to articles in arXiv. The second aspect is how publication in arXiv affects the citation count of authors. The question is whether or not prepublishing in arXiv benefits authors from the point of view of increasing their citations, or rather produces a dispersion, which would diminish the relevance of their publications in evaluation processes. Data have been collected from arXiv, the websites of the journals, Google Scholar, and WoS following a specific ad hoc procedure. The number of citations in journal articles published in WoS to preprints in arXiv is not large. We show that citation counts from regular papers and preprints using different sources (arXiv, the journal¿s website, WoS) give completely different results. This suggests a rather scattered picture of citations that could distort the citation count of a given article against the author¿s interest. However, the number of WoS references to arXiv preprints is small, minimizing this potential negative effect.The work of the first, second, and third author was supported by Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Spain, under Research Grant CSO2015-65594-C2-1R Y 2R (MINECO/FEDER, UE). The work of the fourth author was supported by Ministerio de Economía, Industria y Competitividad, Spain, and FEDER, under Research Grant MTM2016-77054-C2-1-P. The authors would also like to thank the referees for their useful comments and references, which helped them to improve the work, especially in Section 5.Ferrer-Sapena, A.; Aleixandre-Benavent, R.; Peset Mancebo, MF.; Sánchez Pérez, EA. (2018). Citations to arXiv Preprints by Indexed Journals and their Impact on Research Evaluation. Journal of Information Science Theory and Practice (Online). 6(4):14-24. https://doi.org/10.1633/JISTaP.2018.6.4.2S14246

It's Good to Be First: Order Bias in Reading and Citing NBER Working Papers

When choices are made from ordered lists, individuals can exhibit biases toward selecting certain options as a result of the ordering. We examine this phenomenon in the context of consumer response to the ordering of economics papers in an e-mail announcement issued by the NBER. We show that despite the effectively random list placement, papers listed first each week are about 30% more likely to be viewed, downloaded, and subsequently cited. We suggest that a model of “skimming” behavior, where individuals focus on the first few papers in the list due to time constraints, would be most consistent with our findings