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 The arXiv versions of papers - both published and unpublished - have lower citation rates than published papers, although there is almost no difference in the impact of the arXiv versions of both published and unpublished papers.Comment: 29 pages, 11 figure

Investigative Study on Preprint Journal Club as an Effective Method of Teaching Latest Knowledge in Astronomy

As recent advancements in physics and astronomy rapidly rewrite textbooks, there is a growing need in keeping abreast of the latest knowledge in these fields. Reading preprints is one of the effective ways to do this. By having journal clubs where people can read and discuss journals together, the benefits of reading journals become more prevalent. We present an investigative study of understanding the factors that affect the success of preprint journal clubs in astronomy, more commonly known as Astro-ph/Astro-Coffee (hereafter called AC). A survey was disseminated to understand how institutions from different countries implement AC. We interviewed 9 survey respondents and from their responses we identified four important factors that make AC successful: commitment (how the organizer and attendees participate in AC), environment (how conducive and comfortable AC is conducted), content (the discussed topics in AC and how they are presented), and objective (the main goal/s of conducting AC). We also present the format of our AC, an elective class which was evaluated during the Spring Semester 2020 (March 2020 - June 2020). Our evaluation with the attendees showed that enrollees (those who are enrolled and are required to present papers regularly) tend to be more committed in attending compared to audiences (those who are not enrolled and are not required to present papers regularly). In addition, participants tend to find papers outside their research field harder to read. Finally, we showed an improvement in the weekly number of papers read after attending AC of those who present papers regularly, and a high satisfaction rating of our AC. We summarize the areas of improvement in our AC implementation, and we encourage other institutions to evaluate their own AC in accordance with the four aforementioned factors to assess the effectiveness of their AC in reaching their goals.Comment: Accepted for publication in PRPER. A summary video is available at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzy2I_xA_dU&ab_channel=NthuCosmolog

Information-seeking behaviour of physicists and astronomers: an interdisciplinary study.

The study of information-seeking behaviour of scientists has been one of the main concerns of librarians and information scientists since mid twentieth century and yet we need to improve our understanding of their information behaviour in order to maximise the efficiency of information services provided. This thesis studies the information-seeking behaviour of physicists and astronomers with an intradisciplinary approach in order to look at similarities and dissimilarities among the subfields within physics and astronomy. The study also looks at the information-seeking behaviour of people with different academic status and investigates the information-seeking activities of physicists and astronomers in different stages of research projects with the focus of the thesis being research related information-seeking behaviour. Moreover, the research investigates reading behaviour and publishing patterns of physicists and astronomers. The study is a mixed-methods study that uses both qualitative and quantitative approaches. The population of the study included the staff and PhD students in the Department of Physics and Astronomy of University College London. Fifty-six face-to-face semi-structured interviews were conducted, an online questionnaire survey of 114 respondents (out of 242 sample, 47% response rate) was carried out and 88 information-event cards were completed by participants. The findings of the study showed that although some similarities exist in information-seeking behaviour of people in the different subfields of physics and astronomy, each subfield has its own characteristics. Variations were found with regard to different aspects of information-seeking behaviour including the reliance on e-print archives and journal articles, methods used for keeping up-to-date and methods used for identifying articles. The study showed the importance of human information sources and informal communication in the information-seeking behaviour of physicists and astronomers and highlighted the need for and the value of looking at narrower subject communities within disciplines for a deeper understanding of the information behaviour of scientists

Three options for citation tracking: Google Scholar, Scopus and Web of Science

BACKGROUND: Researchers turn to citation tracking to find the most influential articles for a particular topic and to see how often their own published papers are cited. For years researchers looking for this type of information had only one resource to consult: the Web of Science from Thomson Scientific. In 2004 two competitors emerged – Scopus from Elsevier and Google Scholar from Google. The research reported here uses citation analysis in an observational study examining these three databases; comparing citation counts for articles from two disciplines (oncology and condensed matter physics) and two years (1993 and 2003) to test the hypothesis that the different scholarly publication coverage provided by the three search tools will lead to different citation counts from each. METHODS: Eleven journal titles with varying impact factors were selected from each discipline (oncology and condensed matter physics) using the Journal Citation Reports (JCR). All articles published in the selected titles were retrieved for the years 1993 and 2003, and a stratified random sample of articles was chosen, resulting in four sets of articles. During the week of November 7–12, 2005, the citation counts for each research article were extracted from the three sources. The actual citing references for a subset of the articles published in 2003 were also gathered from each of the three sources. RESULTS: For oncology 1993 Web of Science returned the highest average number of citations, 45.3. Scopus returned the highest average number of citations (8.9) for oncology 2003. Web of Science returned the highest number of citations for condensed matter physics 1993 and 2003 (22.5 and 3.9 respectively). The data showed a significant difference in the mean citation rates between all pairs of resources except between Google Scholar and Scopus for condensed matter physics 2003. For articles published in 2003 Google Scholar returned the largest amount of unique citing material for oncology and Web of Science returned the most for condensed matter physics. CONCLUSION: This study did not identify any one of these three resources as the answer to all citation tracking needs. Scopus showed strength in providing citing literature for current (2003) oncology articles, while Web of Science produced more citing material for 2003 and 1993 condensed matter physics, and 1993 oncology articles. All three tools returned some unique material. Our data indicate that the question of which tool provides the most complete set of citing literature may depend on the subject and publication year of a given article

Downloads vs. Citations: Relationships, Contributing Factors and Beyond

Citations to 200 top downloaded papers at RePEc, a digital library in economics, were obtained from SSCI and Google Scholar respectively to address questions relating to downloads and their corresponding citations. This study finds that top downloaded documents are used in various degrees when citation is regarded as an indicator of usage. Results also show that a single downloaded paper selected for this study on average receives twice as many citations from Google Scholar as that from SSCI although the latter has been established much earlier in time. According to the coefficients computed, downloads appear having a moderate relationship with citations. However, other measures such as the download vs citation ratio indicate a stronger connection between the two. While author’s reputation positively affect both download and citation frequencies, other factors (e.g., targeted readers and subject content) seem in play differently for the documents that are repeatedly downloaded or cited. In a nutshell, an infrastructure that encourages downloading at digital libraries would eventually lead to higher usage of their resources

The relationship between bioRxiv preprints, citations and altmetrics

A potential motivation for scientists to deposit their scientific work as preprints is to enhance its citation or social impact. In this study we assessed the citation and altmetric advantage of bioRxiv, a preprint server for the biological sciences. We retrieved metadata of all bioRxiv preprints deposited between November 2013 and December 2017, and matched them to articles that were subsequently published in peer-reviewed journals. Citation data from Scopus and altmetric data from Altmetric.com were used to compare citation and online sharing behavior of bioRxiv preprints, their related journal articles, and nondeposited articles published in the same journals. We found that bioRxiv-deposited journal articles had sizably higher citation and altmetric counts compared to nondeposited articles. Regression analysis reveals that this advantage is not explained by multiple explanatory variables related to the articles' publication venues and authorship. Further research will be required to establish whether such an effect is causal in nature. bioRxiv preprints themselves are being directly cited in journal articles, regardless of whether the preprint has subsequently been published in a journal. bioRxiv preprints are also shared widely on Twitter and in blogs, but remain relatively scarce in mainstream media and Wikipedia articles, in comparison to peer-reviewed journal articles

Bibliografía

Bibliograph

Bibliografía

Bibliograph