No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Does the arXiv lead to higher citations and reduced publisher downloads for mathematics articles?
Abstract
An analysis of 2,765 articles published in four math journals from 1997 to 2005 indicate that articles deposited in the arXiv received 35% more citations on average than non-deposited articles (an advantage of about 1.1 citations per article), and that this difference was most pronounced for highly-cited articles. Open Access, Early View, and Quality Differential were examined as three non-exclusive postulates for explaining the citation advantage. There was little support for a universal Open Access explanation, and no empirical support for Early View. There was some inferential support for a Quality Differential brought about by more highly-citable articles being deposited in the arXiv. In spite of their citation advantage, arXiv-deposited articles received 23% fewer downloads from the publisher's website (about 10 fewer downloads per article) in all but the most recent two years after publication. The data suggest that arXiv and the publisher's website may be fulfilling distinct functional needs of the reader.
... Several preprint servers have emerged within the last decades [40], covering various disciplines: arXiv in physics, mathematics, and computer science, bioRxiv in biology, medRxiv in medicine, and SSRN in social science. Various works have observed benefits of preprints, such as early disclosure, wider dissemination [32] resulting in a higher number of citations [6,10,12], and creating opportunities for collaborations [20,29,32]. In the recent COVID-19 pandemic, preprints have received even greater scientific and public engagement [11]. ...
... These links, DOIs in most cases, are identified and stored as bioRxiv metadata automatically whenever a corresponding author confirms the publication of a preprint via email. 5 We fetch the metadata of publisher versions, such as journal information 6 and publication month, 7 from Unpaywall, using the DOIs. We filter out 50 publisher versions whose publication month cannot be identified and 471 publisher versions that have been published before preprint publication. ...
... last accessed on 2022-04-29 5 https://www.biorxiv.org/about/FAQ, last accessed on 2021-12-146 We use the fields journal_name and journal_issn_l.7 We use the field published_date that corresponds to the field created in Crossref. ...
Citing is an important aspect of scientific discourse and important for quantifying the scientific impact quantification of researchers. Previous works observed that citations are made not only based on the pure scholarly contributions but also based on non-scholarly attributes, such as the affiliation or gender of authors. In this way, citation bias is produced. Existing works, however, have not analyzed preprints with respect to citation bias, although they play an increasingly important role in modern scholarly communication. In this paper, we investigate whether preprints are affected by citation bias with respect to the author affiliation. We measure citation bias for bioRxiv preprints and their publisher versions at the institution level and country level, using the Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient. This allows us to mitigate the effects of confounding factors and see whether or not citation biases related to author affiliation have an increased effect on preprint citations. We observe consistent higher Gini coefficients for preprints than those for publisher versions. Thus, we can confirm that citation bias exists and that it is more severe in case of preprints. As preprints are on the rise, affiliation-based citation bias is, thus, an important topic not only for authors (e.g., when deciding what to cite), but also to people and institutions that use citations for scientific impact quantification (e.g., funding agencies deciding about funding based on citation counts).
... Several preprint servers have emerged within the last decades [40], covering various disciplines: arXiv in physics, mathematics, and computer science, bioRxiv in biology, medRxiv in medicine, and SSRN in social science. Various works have observed benefits of preprints, such as early disclosure, wider dissemination [32] resulting in a higher number of citations [6,10,12], and creating opportunities for collaborations [20,29,32]. In the recent COVID-19 pandemic, preprints have received even greater scientific and public engagement [11]. ...
... These links, DOIs in most cases, are identified and stored as bioRxiv metadata automatically whenever a corresponding author confirms the publication of a preprint via email. 5 We fetch the metadata of publisher versions, such as journal information 6 and publication month, 7 from Unpaywall, using the DOIs. We filter out 50 publisher versions whose publication month cannot be identified and 471 publisher versions that have been published before preprint publication. ...
... last accessed on 2022-04-29 5 https://www.biorxiv.org/about/FAQ, last accessed on 2021-12-146 We use the fields journal_name and journal_issn_l.7 We use the field published_date that corresponds to the field created in Crossref. ...
Citing is an important aspect of scientific discourse and important for quantifying the scientific impact quantification of researchers. Previous works observed that citations are made not only based on the pure scholarly contributions but also based on non-scholarly attributes, such as the affiliation or gender of authors. In this way, citation bias is produced. Existing works, however, have not analyzed preprints with respect to citation bias, although they play an increasingly important role in modern scholarly communication. In this paper, we investigate whether preprints are affected by citation bias with respect to the author affiliation. We measure citation bias for bioRxiv preprints and their publisher versions at the institution level and country level, using the Lorenz curve and Gini coefficient. This allows us to mitigate the effects of confounding factors and see whether or not citation biases related to author affiliation have an increased effect on preprint citations. We observe consistent higher Gini coefficients for preprints than those for publisher versions. Thus, we can confirm that citation bias exists and that it is more severe in case of preprints. As preprints are on the rise, affiliation-based citation bias is, thus, an important topic not only for authors (e.g., when deciding what to cite), but also to people and institutions that use citations for scientific impact quantification (e.g., funding agencies deciding about funding based on citation counts).
... Studying how preprints are cited in academic papers is helpful to learn about not only the scholars' communication behaviour in terms of citing preprints in peer-reviewed journal publications, but also the role of preprints in the peer-reviewed journal publishing system. Mathematics is one of the fields that heavily relies on communication through preprints (Li, Thelwall & Kousha., 2015) and where preprints are always treated as the same as the published versions (Davis and Fromerth, 2007). Evidence is given that, papers deposited in arXiv are increasingly cited by web sources indexed by Google Scholar (Noruzi, 2016) and scholarly documents indexed in Scopus (Li et al., 2015). ...
... Compared with the values of 'arXiv CID' in Condensed Matter and LIS, which is 80% and 95% (Wang et al., 2018) respectively, the value of IDR for the citations of preprints in Mathematics is relatively lower. In consideration of the lower mean citations and longer citation half-life to journal papers in Mathematics (Davis and Fromerth, 2007), it is expected that greater citation advantage of arXiv papers in Mathematics would be detected if longer observation period are given. The impact advantage of preprints becomes most visible in capture (i.e. ...
... While articles with preprint versions deposited in arXiv achieve less usage counts than those without according to WoS, citation and readership advantage of preprints tell against any assumption that arXiv-deposited articles would be of lower "quality" or "value". A possible explanation for this phenomenon might be that gaining information through the WoS database might be especially relevant whenever no open-access information is available, which to some extent supports the explanation by Davis and Fromerth (2007) for the significant fewer full text downloads received by journal papers deposited in arXiv from the publisher's website. To summarise, preprints tend to have more Citations, Readers(Mendeley) and Tweets, but less Usage(WoS) than non-OA papers. ...
In this study we analyse the key driving factors of preprints in enhancing scholarly communication. To this end we use four groups of metrics, one referring to scholarly communication and based on bibliometric indicators (Web of Science and Scopus citations), while the others reflect usage (usage counts in Web of Science), capture (Mendeley readers) and social media attention (Tweets). Hereby we measure two effects associated with preprint publishing: publication delay and impact. We define and use several indicators to assess the impact of journal articles with previous preprint versions in arXiv. In particular, the indicators measure several times characterizing the process of arXiv preprints publishing and the reviewing process of the journal versions, and the ageing patterns of citations to preprints. In addition, we compare the observed patterns between preprints and non-OA articles without any previous preprint versions in arXiv. We could observe that the "early-view" and "open-access" effects of preprints contribute to a measurable citation and readership advantage of preprints. Articles with preprint versions are more likely to be mentioned in social media and have shorter Altmetric attention delay. Usage and capture prove to have only moderate but stronger correlation with citations than Tweets. The different slopes of the regression lines between the different indicators reflect different order of magnitude of usage, capture and citation data.
... To answer the question, this study tries to pair OA and NOA papers in terms of their subject similarity and then examine the association between their OACA and similarity degrees. As far as the OACA-oriented literature goes, it seems that subject coverage is taken into consideration by focusing on the papers published either in the same journal [14,25,[51][52][53] or in the same discipline [6,21,30,[54][55][56][57]. Piwowar et al. [22] categorised papers based on their publishing journal fields, except for those published in multidisciplinary journals that they classified at the article level to their mostly cited subject area. ...
... It is, however, supposed to bring about an added value to scientists as writers, that is, a higher level of recognition by the scientific community, called open access citation advantage (OACA). The OACA, defined as the citation gap between OA and non-open access (NOA) paper groups, is widely confirmed for various OA models, that is, the Gold, Green, article processing charges (APC) and hybrid OA models [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. The research results are not consistent in that they sometimes reject the OACA, for example, at journal level [19], for the Gold model [15,20] and for low-impact journals [21]. ...
... In other words, according to the latter, the citation advantage has roots in the intrinsic merits of the OA papers, and not necessarily in their open accessibility [23]. Some authors believe that more citable articles have a higher probability of being freely accessible [6,11,[23][24][25][26]. Hajjem and Harnad [27] showed that not only self-archived articles are more likely to be cited ('Quality Advantage'), but also those articles which are more likely to be cited are more likely to be self-archived ('Quality Bias'). ...
Research topics vary in their citation potential. In a metric-wise scientific milieu, it would be probable that authors tend to select citation-attractive topics especially when choosing open access (OA) outlets that are more likely to attract citations. Applying a matched-pairs study design, this research aims to examine the role of research topics in the citation advantage of OA papers. Using a comparative citation analysis method, it investigates a sample of papers published in 47 Elsevier article processing charges (APC)-funded journals in different access models including non-open access (NOA), APC, Green and mixed Green-APC. The contents of the papers are analysed using natural language processing techniques at the title and abstract level and served as a basis to match the NOA papers to their peers in the OA models. The publication years and journals are controlled for in order to avoid their impacts on the citation numbers. According to the results, the OA citation advantage that is observed in the whole sample still holds even for the highly similar OA and NOA papers. This implies that the OA citation surplus is not an artefact of the OA and NOA papers’ differences in their topics and, therefore, in their citation potential. This leads to the conclusion that OA authors’ self-selectivity, if it exists at all, is not responsible for the OA citation advantage, at least as far as selection of topics with probably higher citation potentials is concerned.
... Most preprint servers provide daily notification service to servicesubscribers, sending them lists of latest submissions and updated manuscripts. There are studies (Davis and Fromerth, 2007;Feldman et al., 2018) revealing that published papers with preprints submitted before publication gain more citations than those without. Some researchers, in order to present their work to more people, choose to make submissions to preprint servers for public access even after their work has been accepted by peer review. ...
... ArXiv provides its users with usage statistics, 8 but the information is limited to the statistics of submission, access and download. The research of Davis and Fromerth (2007) is an early work that analyzed the correlation between the submission of a preprint and the citation and official download counts of its final publication in the field of mathematics. Their study identified 511 (18.5%) published preprints out of 2,765 sampled journal papers on arXiv. ...
Preprints play an increasingly critical role in academic communities. There are many reasons driving researchers to post their manuscripts to preprint servers before formal submission to journals or conferences, but the use of preprints has also sparked considerable controversy, especially surrounding the claim of priority. In this paper, a case study of computer science preprints submitted to arXiv from 2008 to 2017 is conducted to quantify how many preprints have eventually been printed in peer-reviewed venues. Among those published manuscripts, some are published under different titles and without an update to their preprints on arXiv. In the case of these manuscripts, the traditional fuzzy matching method is incapable of mapping the preprint to the final published version. In view of this issue, we introduce a semantics-based mapping method with the employment of Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT). With this new mapping method and a plurality of data sources, we find that 66% of all sampled preprints are published under unchanged titles and 11% are published under different titles and with other modifications. A further analysis was then performed to investigate why these preprints but not others were accepted for publication. Our comparison reveals that in the field of computer science, published preprints feature adequate revisions, multiple authorship, detailed abstract and introduction, extensive and authoritative references and available source code.
... has become widely established since Attention Scores than articles without a preprint, whilst Fraser et al. [20] report that articles with a preprint received 1.56 times more citations, 2.33 times more tweets, 1.55 times more blog mentions, 1.47 times more mainstream media mentions, 1.30 times more Wikipedia citations and 1.81 times more Mendeley reads than articles without a preprint. These findings of a "bioRxiv citation/altmetric advantage" are in agreement with findings based on similar studies conducted on arXiv [5, [21][22][23][24], and related studies that have investigated the more general Open Access (OA) citation advantage: a recent review of 134 of these studies found that a larger proportion (47.8%) confirm the existence of an OA advantage compared to those that find the opposite effect (27.6%), but it should be noted that the quality and heterogeneity of various studies and their designs make their results difficult to generalise [25]. ...
... Key reasons are that studies may fail to include all possible confounding variables that might influence citation rates; most of the studies only account for intrinsic authorship, article or journal properties, but not for factors relating to authors' behaviour and decision-making processes that may lead to bias in the quality, and thus the "citeability" or "shareability" of preprints. This bias, previously termed the "Self-selection Bias Postulate", or alternatively the "Quality Postulate" [21,22,[26][27][28], may itself be manifested in two dimensions: (1) authors may select their highest "quality" articles (where quality, in this sense, may refer to the articles that the authors believe will generate the highest citation/online impact) to post as preprints, which would consequently be more strongly cited or shared on online platforms than their lower quality articles, or (2) higher "quality" authors may preferentially post their articles as preprints compared to lower quality authors. ...
Since 2013, the usage of preprints as a means of sharing research in biology has rapidly grown, in particular via the preprint server bioRxiv. Recent studies have found that journal articles that were previously posted to bioRxiv received a higher number of citations or mentions/shares on other online platforms compared to articles in the same journals that were not posted. However, the exact causal mechanism for this effect has not been established, and may in part be related to authors’ biases in the selection of articles that are chosen to be posted as preprints. We aimed to investigate this mechanism by conducting a mixed-methods survey of 1,444 authors of bioRxiv preprints, to investigate the reasons that they post or do not post certain articles as preprints, and to make comparisons between articles they choose to post and not post as preprints. We find that authors are most strongly motivated to post preprints to increase awareness of their work and increase the speed of its dissemination; conversely, the strongest reasons for not posting preprints centre around a lack of awareness of preprints and reluctance to publicly post work that has not undergone a peer review process. We additionally find evidence that authors do not consider quality, novelty or significance when posting or not posting research as preprints, however, authors retain an expectation that articles they post as preprints will receive more citations or be shared more widely online than articles not posted.
... Even when controlling for these factors, the size of the citation/altmetric advantage remains substantial: Fu and Hughey (2019) report that articles with a preprint received 1.36 times more citations and 1.49 times higher Altmetric Attention Scores than articles without a preprint, whilst Fraser et al. (2020) report that articles with a preprint received 1.56 times more citations, 2.33 times more tweets, 1.55 times more blog mentions, 1.47 times more mainstream media mentions, 1.30 times more Wikipedia citations and 1.81 times more Mendeley reads than articles without a preprint. These findings of a "bioRxiv citation/altmetric advantage" are in agreement with findings based on similar studies conducted on arXiv (Davis & Fromerth, 2007;Larivière et al., 2014;Moed, 2007;, and related studies that have investigated the more general Open Access (OA) citation advantage, finding that OA articles tend to be more strongly cited than non-OA articles (Gargouri et al., 2010;Archambault et al., 2016;Piwowar et al., 2018). ...
... One key reason is that the studies only account for intrinsic authorship, article or journal properties, but not for factors relating to authors' behaviour and decision-making processes that may lead to bias in the quality, and thus the "citeability" or "shareability" of preprints. This bias, previously termed the "Self-selection Bias Postulate", or alternatively the "Quality Postulate" (Kurtz et al., 2005;Henneken et al., 2006;Moed, 2007;Davis & Fromerth, 2007;Gargouri et al., 2010), may itself be manifested in two dimensions: (1) authors may select their highest "quality" articles (where quality, in this sense, may refer to the articles that the authors believe will generate the highest citation/online impact) to post as preprints, which would consequently be more strongly cited or shared on online platforms than their lower quality articles, or ...
Since 2013, the usage of preprints as a means of sharing research in biology has rapidly grown, in particular via the preprint server bioRxiv. Recent studies have found that journal articles that were previously posted to bioRxiv received a higher number of citations or mentions/shares on other online platforms compared to articles in the same journals that were not posted. However, the exact causal mechanism for this effect has not been established, and may in part be related to authors' biases in the selection of articles that are chosen to be posted as preprints. We aimed to investigate this mechanism by conducting a mixed-methods survey of 1,444 authors of bioRxiv preprints, to investigate the reasons that they post or do not post certain articles as preprints, and to make comparisons between articles they choose to post and not post as preprints. We find that authors are most strongly motivated to post preprints to increase awareness of their work and increase the speed of its dissemination; conversely, the strongest reasons for not posting preprints centre around a lack of awareness of preprints and reluctance to publicly post work that has not undergone a peer review process. We additionally find weak evidence that authors preferentially select their highest quality, most novel or most significant research to post as preprints, however, authors retain an expectation that articles they post as preprints will receive more citations or be shared more widely online than articles not posted.
... Another, smaller study based on articles published between 2007 and 2009 reinforced the existence of an open access citation advantage (Archambault et al., 2016). For preprints, Davis & Fromerth (2006) showed that articles gained 35% more citations by being made available via arXiv. Two other studies found a citation advantage of 17% and 18% respectively for either self-archiving in green open access or hybrid open access, with this effect seemingly declining over the years 2004 to 2007 for green open access (Davis, 2009;Piwowar et al., 2018). ...
... Three postulates explaining the advantage of publishing in open access have been proposed (Davis & Fromerth, 2006;Kurtz et al., 2005;Norris et al., 2008;Swan, 2010;Wren, 2005): ...
Altmetrics, in contrast to traditional metrics, measure the societal impact research outputs have on the public in general, using social media platforms as their primary data sources. In this study, differences in Altmetric Scores between open and closed access articles of German research institutions in the field of natural sciences have been analyzed. For this investigation data from the years 2013 to 2017 was gathered from Web of Science, Altmetric.com and Unpaywall. Results indicated that articles published in open access gain higher Altmetric Attention Scores compared to articles behind subscription paywalls, although the difference was statistically not significant. Research outputs published in gold open access had the highest scores, followed by articles in green and then hybrid open access. Furthermore, articles by publishers with higher percentages of open access content gained higher Altmetric Attention Scores than articles distributed by those with medium or low percentages. In a future study additional databases could be included as well as data from years to come. Moreover, a comparable study for the field of humanities would be conceivable, including other document types such as books or contributions in anthologies as well.
... Conversely, especially starting from the second half of the 2000s, other authors contend that the relationship between OA and higher citation achievements lacks empirical evidence (Davis 2011;Davis et al. 2008;Dorta-González et al. 2017;Ingwersen and Elleby 2011;Kurtz et al. 2005;Sotudeh and Horri 2007) or that, if any advantage exists, OA is not the primary cause (Calver and Bradley 2009;Craig et al. 2007;Davis 2009;Davis and Fromerth 2007;Gaulé and Maystre 2011;Moed 2007;Zhang and Watson 2017;Zhang 2006). Early skepticism on the advantages consequent to the online, open availability of articles can be found in Anderson et al. (2001). ...
... Koler-Povh, Juznic, Turk (2014) OA alone is not sufficient for the citation advantage Xia and Nakanishi (2012) OA favors bottom-rank journals, no advantage for top journals Dorta-González, González-Betancor, Dorta-González (2017) e l c i t r a t a h t o b e g a t n a v d a A O o N 6 2 8 , 7 7 0 , 1 and journal level Yanjun Zhang (2006) OA has more web citations, not from scholarly publications Moed (2007) Quality bias and early view effect, no citation premium Gaulé, Maystre (2011) No evidence for a causal effect of OA on citations Davis and Fromerth (2007) Inferential support for quality gap but not for OA citation advantage Davis of paying Article Processing Charge (APC) by the authors or their supporters upon publication so that a document is made immediately available to the largest audience. Gold OA articles can be found both in Gold OA and hybrid journals. ...
Do open access (OA) documents benefit from a citation premium in comparison to traditional subscription-based articles? The question has been debated during the last two decades, as OA is gaining momentum and becoming an ever more established option. Without coming to a shared position, the literature on the topic has essentially split into two clusters: on the one hand, the studies that endorse the occurrence of an OA citation advantage; on the other hand, the works suggesting that it has a negligible extent, or is due to other confounding factors. The primary aim of this study is not to bring new evidence in favor or against the citation premium supposedly characterizing OA articles. Instead, this work is meant to test a specific hypothesis connected with the OA citation advantage, namely, that OA papers may benefit from higher citations in open indexing databases (e.g., Google Scholar) rather than in selective indexing engines (i.e., Scopus and Web of Science). The empirical findings, although conflicting, show that the hypothesis above is not misplaced since a few confirmatory results are achieved. However, the hypothesized relationship remains controversial, also because of an uncertain boundary between OA and paywall articles.
... 3. Science can evolve much more rapidly and substantially if we join forces and open the possibilities for contributions of any order of magnitude, any level of expertise, including both specialists and non-specialists. 4. (3) can be achieved within Open Science. 5. Everyone interested in the reach, scope, and power of Open Science can find in Nielsen's book [1] a great body of compelling favorable evidence. ...
... 6. In addition, there are a number of great articles on the subject [2][3][4][5] and also some books that discuss related topics relevant for accomplishing open science projects [6][7][8]. ...
This is a draft open preprint. I would like to issue an open invitation for new contributions to this preprint in order to join forces and strengthen the field of openness of science and to promote a worldwide culture that might lead to unprecedent growth of scientific discoveries, which may spark a permanent revolution in science and technology in the near future. The guidelines for participating in this open project by coauthoring the preprint are described herein. Open Science (in any field of knowledge) can succeed extraordinarily solely by virtue of two simple elements: people willing to collaborate and a suitable online platform. I believe that science would progress substantially if we unite open researchers worldwide using nowadays technology in a clever way so that the results meet the standards required for high-level publications demanded by our current society. I present here a simple way to accomplish Open Science in Open Access Forums.
... OA articles have taken three years to acquire a maximum number of citations in High and Medium Impact factor zones and five years in the case of OA research articles in Low Impact factor zone and thus the initial citation boost generally associated with OA articles is missing. The results vary with the findings of the studies carried out by Atchison and Bull (2015), Laakso and Bj€ ork (2013), Riera and Aibar (2013),; Donovan andWatson (2011), Gargouri et al. (2010), Xia et al. (2010), Evans and Reimer (2009) and Davis and Fromerth (2007) 6. Results and discussions Analysis of data has been done using two different statistical tests, i.e. Pearson's Chi-Square test and student's independent t-test. ...
Purpose
The purpose of this paper is to determine the relationship between the access mode of research articles [Open Access (OA) and Toll-Access (TA)] and their subsequent citation counts in Biological and Physical Sciences in three Impact factor zones (High, Medium and Low).
Design/methodology/approach
Three subjects each from Biological Sciences (Biochemistry, Cell Biology and Genetics) and Physical Sciences (Astronomy, Oceanography and Optics) were selected for the study. A comprehensive list of journals (TA and OA) in select subjects of Biological and Physical Sciences was prepared by consulting Journal Citation Report’s Master Journal List (for the compilation of both Open Access and Toll Access journal list) and Directory of Open Access Journals (for the compilation of Open Access journal list). For each journal, essential details like content language, format, year of publication, access mode (Open Access or Toll Access), etc. were obtained from Ulrich’s Periodical Directory. Web of Science (WoS) was used as citations indexing tool in this study. The data set was run on the WoS to collect the citation data.
Findings
The results of the study indicate that open mode of access is not a prerequisite for higher citation boost as in the majority of the cases in this study, TA articles have garnered a greater number of citations as compared to open access articles in different Impact factor zones in Biological and Physical Sciences.
Originality/value
A novel approach has been adopted to understand and compare the research impact of open access (OA) and toll access (TA) journal articles in the field of Biological and Physical Sciences at three Impact factor zone levels to reveal the citation metrics encompassing three parameters, i.e. citedness, average citation count and year wise distribution of citations in select subjects of Biological and Physical Sciences.
Peer review
The peer review history for this article is available at: https://publons.com/publon/[DOI]/10.1108/OIR-01-2021-0029
... In comparison to traditional publication, the release of preprints promises a faster publication of time-sensitive research [1]. In addition, the benefits of preprints include higher attraction [24] and potentially more citations [10,15,16,17,36], faster feedback from the research community as well as open access publication. While the benefits initially outweigh the disadvantages for the submitter, the disadvantages primarily affect the research community. ...
The growing impact of preprint servers enables the rapid sharing of time-sensitive research. Likewise, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish high-quality, peer-reviewed research from preprints. Although preprints are often later published in peer-reviewed journals, this information is often missing from preprint servers. To overcome this problem, the PreprintResolver was developed, which uses four literature databases (DBLP, SemanticScholar, OpenAlex, and CrossRef / CrossCite) to identify preprint-publication pairs for the arXiv preprint server. The target audience focuses on, but is not limited to inexperienced researchers and students, especially from the field of computer science. The tool is based on a fuzzy matching of author surnames, titles, and DOIs. Experiments were performed on a sample of 1,000 arXiv-preprints from the research field of computer science and without any publication information. With 77.94 %, computer science is highly affected by missing publication information in arXiv. The results show that the PreprintResolver was able to resolve 603 out of 1,000 (60.3 %) arXiv-preprints from the research field of computer science and without any publication information. All four literature databases contributed to the final result. In a manual validation, a random sample of 100 resolved preprints was checked. For all preprints, at least one result is plausible. For nine preprints, more than one result was identified, three of which are partially invalid. In conclusion the PreprintResolver is suitable for individual, manually reviewed requests, but less suitable for bulk requests. The PreprintResolver tool (https://preprintresolver.eu, Available from 2023-08-01) and source code (https://gitlab.com/ippolis_wp3/preprint-resolver, Accessed: 2023-07-19) is available online.
... They show that the short-term impact of web usage of preprints predicts a medium-term impact on citations of the final article. An analysis in Davis and Fromerth (2007) of 2,765 articles published in four mathematics journals between 1997 and 2005 found that articles deposited on arXiv received on average 35% more citations than articles not deposited, and that this difference was most pronounced for highly cited articles. Despite the citation advantage, articles published on arXiv were 23% less likely to be downloaded from the publisher's website. ...
Purpose
This study investigates how important the preprint arXiv is for Slovenian scientists, whether there are differences between scientific disciplines and the reputation of arXiv among Slovenian scientists. We are also interested in what advantages and disadvantages scientists see in using arXiv.
Design/methodology/approach
A voluntary sample of active researchers from the scientific fields covered by arXiv was used. Data were collected over 21 days in September 2021 using a 40-question online survey. In addition to descriptive statistics, nonparametric statistical methods such as Pearson's chi-squared test for independence, Kruskal-Wallis' H-test and Mann-Whitney's U-test were applied to the collected data.
Findings
Among Slovenian scientists there is a wide range of different users of arXiv. The authors note differences among scientific disciplines. Physicists and astronomers are the most engaged, followed by mathematicians. Researchers in computer science, electrical engineering and systems science seem to have recognized the benefits of the archive, but are still hesitant to use it. Researchers from the other scientific fields participated in the survey to a lesser extent, suggesting that arXiv is less popular in these scientific fields. For Slovenian scientists, the main advantages of arXiv are faster access to knowledge, open access, greater impact of scientists' work and the fact that publishing in the archive is free of charge. A negative aspect of using the archive is the frustration caused by the difficulties in assessing the credibility of articles.
Research limitations/implications
A voluntary sample was used, which attracted a larger number of researchers but has a higher risk of sampling bias.
Practical implications
The results are useful for international comparisons, but also provide bases and recommendations for institutional and national policies to evaluate researchers and their performance.
Originality/value
The results provide valuable insights into arXiv usage habits and the reasons for using or not using arXiv by Slovenian scientists. There is no comparable study conducted in Slovenia.
... The publication of non-peer-reviewed research manuscripts, called preprints, has gained popularity in recent years. Several studies demonstrate the benefits of publishing such preprints; for example, based on the number of citations [1,2]. In addition, the current COVID-19 pandemic shed new light on this type of publication because it allows researchers to communicate new findings quickly, since the publication process is not slowed by peer review. ...
Background:
The current Corona crisis underscores the importance of preprints, as they allow for rapid communication of research results without delay in review. To fully integrate this type of publication into library information systems, we developed preVIEW - a publicly available, central search engine for COVID-19 preprints that clearly distinguishes this source from peer-reviewed publications. The relationship between the preprint version and its corresponding journal version should be stored as metadata in both versions so that duplicates can be easily identified and information overload for researchers is reduced.
Objective:
In this work, we investigate the extent to which the relationship information between preprint and corresponding journal publication is present in the published metadata, how it can be further completed, and how it can be used in preVIEW to identify already re-published preprints and filter those duplicates in search results.
Methods:
We first analyze the information content available at the preprint servers themselves and the information that can be retrieved via Crossref. Moreover, we develop the algorithm Pre2Pub to find the corresponding reviewed article for each preprint. We integrate the results of those different resources into our search engine preVIEW, present the information in the result set overview and add filter options accordingly.
Results:
Preprints have found their place in the publication workflows, however, the link from a preprint to its corresponding journal publication is not completely covered in the metadata of the preprint servers or in Crossref. Our algorithm Pre2Pub is able to find about 16% more related journal articles with a precision of 99.27%. We also integrate this information in a transparent way within preVIEW so that researchers can use it in their search.
Conclusions:
Relationships between preprint version and its journal version is valuable information that help researchers finding only previously unknown information in preprints. As long as there is no transparent and complete way to store this relationship in metadata, the Pre2Pub algorithm is a suitable extension to retrieve this information.
Clinicaltrial:
... Avec le développement de l'Open Access (OA) et l'encodage massif des articles dans les répertoires institutionnels, il serait logique de penser que les articles déposés dans des répertoires en OA, donc susceptibles d'être plus lus et plus souvent cités, aient un impact plus important (Norris, 2008). Cette hypothèse a fait l'objet de différentes études (Davis et Fromerth, 2007 ;Davis et Price, 2006 ;Davis et Walters, 2011 ;Davis, 2010 ;Gorraiz et al., 2014 ;Guerrero-Bote et Moya-Anegón, 2014 ;Harnad et al., 2004 ;Moed, 2007). Les dernières études (Archambault et al., 2016 ;Jamali et Nabavi, 2015 ;Mikki et al., 2018 ;Piwowar et al., 2018) font état d'un impact de citation jusqu'à 50 % plus important pour ces documents. ...
Cet article s’intéresse à la visibilité de la littérature scientifique produite par les géographes de l’ULiège, à travers des bases de données bibliographiques traditionnelles et du moteur de recherche Google Scholar. La contribution du répertoire institutionnel ORBi dans la meilleure visibilité des références est évaluée également. Concrètement, une analyse du référencement d’un échantillon de publications par les bases de données commerciales multidisciplinaires, Scopus et WoS, et spécialisée GeoRef, ainsi que par le moteur de recherche GS est effectuée. D’autres facteurs tels que la langue de publication et la distribution entre ST et SHS ont été pris en compte. Les résultats montrent que la distribution des publications des membres du département de Géographie entre les types de documents est différente en fonction de l’orientation du sujet vers les SHS ou les ST, même si les articles de périodiques constituent le principal type de publications, quelle que soit la sous-discipline. En SHS, les chapitres et parties de livres ainsi que les articles et communications sont majoritairement en français. Les performances de GS sont supérieures à celles des BD pour notre échantillon de publications des géographes de l'ULiège. En conclusion, le répertoire institutionnel ORBi contribue incontestablement à améliorer les performances de GS quant au recouvrement de notre échantillon de publications et à donner une meilleure visibilité de la littérature francophone en Géographie.
... Previous research has discussed the reasons for a higher citation rate for Green OA articles in general. Authors might self-archive their better-quality work, and articles made available as preprints have an extended period to be cited (Kurtz et al., 2005;Davis & Fromerth, 2007). These arguments were supported by the results in our study: Green OA articles had notably more citations than their counterparts in the same OA category. ...
The number of Open Access (OA) research articles is trending upward. This research aims to understand the correlations between different OA types and the impact of OA research articles evaluated based on the citation numbers. To avoid bias caused by the publication year, we chose to use COVID‐19 studies in different fields to take advantage of this topic's quick turnaround of data. We analyzed the bibliometrics data and citation numbers (excluding self‐citations) of around 42,000 English language articles published in 2020 related to COVID‐19. We evaluated different types of OA categories such as Gold, Bronze, and Hybrid articles separately. Results show that amongst all OA categories, Hybrid/Green and Bronze/Green OA articles had significant citation advantages. Green OA articles returned more citations than articles with the other OA status. Gold OA articles have no citation advantages compared to non‐OA articles. Gold/Green OA articles had the highest self‐citation rates, followed by Non‐OA articles. The results of the study can be used in understanding different OA categories and the reasons for OA choices. Certain strategies can be made accordingly to improve the awareness of OA in different fields and help OA publishers to improve the OA services.
... Other examples of large databases that aggregate community contributions like Wikipedia and arXiv tend to be much broader and less structured, but researchers have also found new uses for the information, including prediction or modelling of outcomes such a citation counts, drug safety outcomes, or movie success (Bar-Ilan and Aharony, 2014; Davis and Fromerth, 2007;Ma and Weng, 2016;Mestya´n et al., 2013;Moat et al., 2013). Though it might not seem similar, patient data stored in medical records are another example where structured and unstructured information are contributed by a decentralised group and then pooled for the purpose of decision supportincluding predicting risks by aggregating from the most similar past examples (Longhurst et al., 2014). ...
The design and reporting of data-driven studies seeking to measure misinformation are patchy and inconsistent, and these studies rarely measure associations with, or effects on, behaviour. The consequence is that data-driven misinformation studies are not yet useful as an empirical basis for guiding when to act on emerging misinformation threats, or for deciding when it is more appropriate to do nothing to avoid inadvertently amplifying misinformation. In a narrative review focused on examples of health-related misinformation, we take a critical perspective of data-driven misinformation studies. To address this problem, we propose a curated and open library of misinformation examples and describe its structure and how it might be used to support actionable surveillance. We draw on experiences with other curated repositories to speculate on the likely challenges related to achieving critical mass and maintaining data consistency. We conclude that an open library of misinformation could help improve the consistency of data-driven misinformation study design and reporting, as well as provide an empirical basis from which to make decisions about how to act on new and emerging misinformation threats.
... In this context, there has been an increasing presence of bibliometric studies in the last decades analyzing the characteristics of the scientific production in Mathematics. Among them, the following ones stand out: at the macro level by country (Schott 1980;Braun and Nagy 1982;Arunachalam 2001;Behrens and Luksch 2011;Braun 2012;Zhou and Tian 2014;Gaskó, Lung and Suciu 2016), by discipline (Brunson et al. 2014) and by citation impact of articles in the area (Davis and Fromerth 2007;Zhou and Leydesdorff 2007;Smolinsky and Lercher 2012); at the meso level, by journal productivity (Wagner-Döbler 1997), by citation impact of journal (Pravdić and Pekorari 1985;Eto 1999); and at the micro level, by author productivity (Lindahl and Danell 2016). Especially dedicated to the analysis of the characteristics of the h-index and its variants in the field of Mathematics, the following ones stand out: Ayaz and Afzal (2016) Particularly, Castanha and Grácio (2013) have highlighted the lack of studies in the Brazilian context that assess the scientific production in Mathematics and that identify its main actors and that provide insight to the decision making that enables planning development strategies. ...
Although the h-index is considered a significant indicator to evaluate the researchers' performance, as it simultaneously measures aspects related to their scientific productivity and citation impact, several studies have pointed out its deficiencies and limitations. In this context, this study aims to evaluate the contribution of dci and dco indicators, two Hirsch-type indices, to measure the reasonableness of the h-index as a representation of the researcher’s scientific performance. The universe of analysis consisted of 116 Brazilian mathematicians holding CNPq grants. For each researcher, the number of articles, the number of citations per article and the year of publication were collected in the Scopus database. Then, for each researcher, the h-index and dci and dco indices were calculated. The dci and dco indicators allowed selective and productive researchers to be to distinguished more accurately. In addition, they contributed to estimate the possibility of the researcher to increase his/her h-index. The study concludes that the dci and dco indices were able to reliably measure the distribution dispersion of the researchers' citation impact together with their h-index. Consequently, they managed to estimate the representativeness of h-index as an indicator of the researchers' scientific performance in the field of mathematics in Brazil.
... Lawrence 2001;Antelman 2004;Kurtz et al. 2005;Hajjem et al. 2005, Sotudeh andHorri 2007). These initial studies not only assisted with identifying the mechanisms through which an OA citation advantage could possibly be explained (Davis and Fromerth 2007;Sotudeh and Horri 2009), but also found that an OA citation advantage differs across the various types of OA (e.g. green, gold, hybrid) (Archambault et al. 2014b, p. 20;Periances-Rodríguez andOlmeda-Gómez 2019, p. 1743) and subject areas (Dorta-González et al. 2017). ...
This study is one of the first that uses the recently introduced open access (OA) labels in the Web of Science (WoS) metadata to investigate whether OA articles published in Directory of Open Access Journals (DOAJ) listed journals experience a citation advantage in comparison to subscription journal articles, specifically those of which no self-archived versions are available. Bibliometric data on all articles and reviews indexed in WoS, and published from 2013 to 2015, were analysed. In addition to normalised citation score (NCS), we used two additional measures of citation advantage: whether an article was cited at all; and whether an article is among the most frequently cited percentile of articles within its respective subject area (pptopX %). For each WoS subject area, the strength of the relationship between access status (whether an article was published in an OA journal) and each of these three measures was calculated. We found that OA journal articles experience a citation advantage in very few subject areas and, in most of these subject areas, the citation advantage was found on only a single measure of citation advantage, namely whether the article was cited at all. Our results lead us to conclude that access status accounts for little of the variability in the number of citations an article accumulates. The methodology and the calculations that were used in this study are described in detail and we believe that the lessons we learnt, and the recommendations we make, will be of much use to future researchers interested in using the WoS OA labels, and to the field of citation advantage in general.
... The positive correlation observed between open access and increased citation levels has sometimes been interpreted as a direct causal link (Harnad and Brody, 2004). Others, for example Kurtz et al. (2005), Davis and Fromerth (2007) and Moed (2007), have proposed other reasons to explain the observed citation count differential, such as a subconscious selection from authors to self-archive their best quality papers or the availability of pre-prints which then attract earlier citations. In their review of the literature on open access and citation impact, including early studies from Harnad and Brody (2004), Antelman (2004), and Hajjem, Harnad and Gringas (2005) to more recent studies (Moed, 2007), Craig et al. (2007) have scrutinised both the conclusions and the methodologies supporting those conclusions. ...
... The number of publications, absence of open access and low accessibility could be some of the factors leading to a low received citation number. Open access papers receive more citations (Davis and Fromerth, 2007;Gargouri et al., 2010;Kousha and Abdoli, 2010;Abbasi et al., 2019). However, further research needs to be undertaken in this regard. ...
Purpose
Many researchers in ResearchGate (RG) engage in scholarly activity and share research findings. The researchers' activities in this social network may increase the probability of their works being cited. Thus, this study aims to examine the status of RG indices and the Scopus citation indicators of the allied medical sciences lecturers and their association with their academic rankings.
Design/methodology/approach
A cross-sectional, descriptive analytical study was performed. As a first step, the names of all 50 lecturers at the School of Allied Medical Sciences were searched through RG to find all the lecturers with profiles. Then, the h-index as well as the number of citations by them were extracted from Scopus. Spearman's correlation coefficient test was performed to explore the association of the RG score with the Scopus citation indicators and the academic rankings of the lecturers.
Findings
The findings demonstrated that there is a statistically significant relationship between the RG indices (except the question and answer indices) and the Scopus citation indicators with the academic rankings of the lecturers (p-value < 0.01).
Originality/value
Knowledge of the significant relationship between the RG indices and the Scopus citation indicators may encourage the lecturers to make more efforts to be active on RG. Furthermore, policymakers can encourage their researchers and lecturers to be more active in this scientific social network, which could lead to promoting the university rankings in the global and national rankings systems.
... Errors and oversights can persist far longer when experimental design, raw data, and data analysis are held in private; even once published, weeks and months can be wasted in chasing reproduction of results because methods are documented only as fully as a journal word count permits; labs can become isolated, their advancement slowed, for lack of substantive interaction with others. As has been demonstrated in other disciplines, open science can help to mitigate these risks, to the immediate benefit of the individual practitioner (Davis and Fromerth 2007;Lawrence 2001). ...
The field of ecology is poised to take advantage of emerging technologies that facilitate the gathering, analyzing, and sharing of data, methods, and results. The concept of transparency at all stages of the research process, coupled with free and open access to data, code, and papers, constitutes "open science." Despite the many benefits of an open approach to science, a number of barriers to entry exist that may prevent researchers from embracing openness in their own work. Here we describe several key shifts in mindset that underpin the transition to more open science. These shifts in mindset include thinking about data stewardship rather than data ownership, embracing transparency throughout the data life-cycle and project duration, and accepting critique in public. Though foreign and perhaps frightening at first, these changes in thinking stand to benefit the field of ecology by fostering collegiality and broadening access to data and findings. We present an overview of tools and best practices that can enable these shifts in mindset at each stage of the research process, including tools to support data management planning and reproducible analyses, strategies for soliciting constructive feedback throughout the research process, and methods of broadening access to final research products.
... For our ranking of authors and institutions, we have collected multiple measures for each article, namely article downloads, its citations, and its impact factor and citations/download (CD) ratio. Our focus of ranking authors and institutions is based on the CD ratio as this measure has become popular over the last two decades and statistically validated in numerous studies across the multiple social science disciplines 1 (see, for instance, Davis and Fromerth, 2007;Lippi and Favaloro, 2013;Moed, 2005;Nieder et al., 2013;O'Leary, 2008;Perneger, 2004;Schloegl and Gorraiz, 2011;Xue-li et al., 2011). As a robustness check, we also use a normalized CD variable, 2 where the CD variable is adjusted for the article's age (see, for instance, Kreiman and Maunsell, 2011;and Opthof, 2011) as newer papers would be relatively less cited due to time factor-the fact that the article is fresh. ...
Islamic finance research has proliferated in the past five years. Between 1982 and 2020, a total of 315 research articles have been published in high quality journals. This paper undertakes a survey of this literature since 2005 and investigates the contributions of authors, institutions, and countries to the Islamic finance literature. Our analysis leads to ranking the impact of the authors and institutions based on paper downloads and citations. Our focus is 242 papers published since 2015 contributed by 406 authors associated with 280 institutions from 57 countries. Our analysis reveals that the ranking of authors, institutions and countries is neither constrained by religious beliefs or geography (location in Muslim-majority countries) nor dependent on such characteristics of academic institutions. This implies that Islamic finance has a global academic appeal.
... The second category of arXiv-deposited articles is based on the situation that some scholars elect to post their articles to arXiv even after the publisher date, in which case, researchers usually submit a copy of the accepted manuscripts. This behaviour is generally done with the legal permission of relevant journals to propagate the findings and increase the popularity of articles (Davis & Fromerth, 2007), and a few journals have even begun to post published articles to similar servers (Jackson, 2002). Thus, the second category of arXiv-deposited articles are those deposited in arXiv after being published in established journals. ...
Merging the citation counts of arXiv-deposited e-prints (arXiv version) with those of their corresponding published journal articles (publisher version) is an important issue in citation analysis. Using examples of arXiv-deposited e-prints, this article adopts a manual approach to investigate the processing methods used by bibliographic repositories such as Google Scholar, Web of Science, Scopus, Astrophysics Data System (ADS), and INSPIRE for the citation merging. Both Google Scholar and ADS consolidate all citations from the two versions into the publisher one, whereas the consolidated citations are accumulated into the arXiv version in the INSPIRE repository. All these methods ignore the categories of the arXiv-deposited versions and the corresponding availability dates. As for Web of Science and Scopus, they count the citations of the two versions separately, which is likely regarding them as two independent articles. Focusing on journal articles that also appeared as arXiv e-prints, we classify them into two categories and identify two public availability dates of articles as the starting point of citation statistics. We present four feasible schemes to consolidate citation counts for the articles with both versions and also propose a universal scheme based on the research output. Furthermore, we investigated 2,662 e-prints in the “Computer Science - Digital Libraries” subject (cs.DL) from 1998 to 2018 in arXiv.org and manually calculated the consolidated citation counts of arXiv-deposited articles with the corresponding citation merging schemes. Furthermore, these citation consolidation methods are applied to the evaluation of articles, authors, and journals. Such empirical testing proves the feasibility of the schemes proposed in this article.
... Вопросу влияния ОА на метрики цитирования статей посвящено очень большое количество исследований [6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13]. До появления в 2018 г. новых инструментов аналитических баз данных (БД) WoS CC и Scopus, позволяющих независимо исследовать отельные группы статей, опубликованных по разным моделям ОА, результаты исследований были неоднозначными, что привело к формулированию авторами [14][15][16][17] ряда причин, по которым статьи ОА могли цитироваться чаще. В работе [18] авторы исключили возможные причины и показали, что статьи Green OA и Hybrid OA цитируются чаще, чем статьи, распространяемые по подписке (Paywall). ...
... There are also data suggesting that papers posted as preprints generate more citations (Davis & Fromerth, 2007). An unknown proportion of authors may be placing preprints in bio-Rxiv to realize this benefit. ...
bioRxiv was founded on the premise that publicly posting preprints would allow authors to receive feedback and submit improved papers to journals. This paper analyses a number of trends against this stated purpose, namely, the timing of preprint postings relative to submission to accepting journals; trends in the rate of unpublished preprints over time; trends in the timing of publication of preprints by accepting journals; and trends in the concentration of published, reviewed preprints by publisher. Findings show that a steady c.30% of preprints remain unpublished and that the majority is posted onto bioRxiv close to or after submission – therefore giving no time for feedback to help improve the articles. Four publishers (Elsevier, Nature, PLOS, and Oxford University Press) account for the publication of 47% of bioRxiv preprints. Taken together, it appears that bioRxiv is not accomplishing its stated goals and that authors may be using the platform more to establish priority, as a marketing enhancement of papers, and as functional Green OA, rather than as a community‐driven source of prepublication review.
... Access to preprints for machine-based crawling in order to facilitate text mining is also seen as an advantage by some commentators (Chodacki et al., 2017). Preprints, partly as a result of wider dissemination, can also increase numbers of citations of papers (Davis & Fromerth, 2007) and create opportunities for collaborations (Kleinert et al., 2018). Finally, preprint servers can sometimes usefully also house research outputs that might otherwise be 'homeless', including items that do not end up being published in peerreviewed journals (Bourne et al., 2017). ...
Background : Since 2013, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of preprint servers available online. To date, little is known about the position of researchers, funders, research performing organisations and other stakeholders with respect to this fast-paced landscape. In this article, we explore the benefits and challenges of preprint posting, along with issues such as infrastructure and financial sustainability. We also discuss the definition of a ‘preprint’ in different communities, and the impact this has on further uptake.
Methods : This study is based on 38 detailed semi-structured interviews of key stakeholders based on a purposive heterogeneous sampling approach. Interviews were undertaken between October 2018 and January 2019. These were recorded, transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis to identify trends. Interview questions were designed based on Innovation Diffusion Theory, which is also used to interpret the results of this study.
Results : Our study is the first using empirical data to understand the new wave of preprint servers and found that early and fast dissemination is the most appealing feature of the practice. The main concerns are related to the lack of quality assurance and the ‘Ingelfinger rule’. We identified trust as an essential enabler of preprint posting and stress the enabling role of Twitter in showcasing preprints and enabling comments on these.
Conclusions : The preprints landscape is evolving fast and disciplinary communities are at different stages in the innovation diffusion process. The landscape is characterised by significant experimentation, which leads to the conclusion that a one-size-fits-all approach to preprints is not feasible. Cooperation and active engagement between the stakeholders involved will play an important role in the future. In our paper, we share questions for the further development of the preprints landscape, with the most important being whether preprint posting will develop as a publisher- or researcher-centric practice.
... Another issue is the difference between open access vs traditional publishing where readers may need a subscription ( Davis et al., 2008). For instance, articles that were deposited in an open access environment received 35 percent more citations on average than non-deposited articles (Davis and Fromerth, 2007). Another complicating factor may be whether a study relates to basic science vs a clinical study (Rhee, 2015). ...
Purpose - The purpose of this study is to explore the impact of articles that are published in JMTM by looking at download patterns.
Design/methodology/approach – Four issues of JMTM were selected for the analysis. These covered a total of 29 articles. The monthly downloads for these articles were analyzed.
Findings – Five impact categories were determined based on the download patterns for both the life of the articles up until April 2019 as well as for the immediacy of the articles, that is the downloads in the first 12 months. Articles with monthly downloads of roughly 10 or less were considered very low impact. A low number of downloads were those with roughly 15-20 downloads per month. Average downloads are those with roughly 25-45 monthly downloads while 60-70 monthly downloads were articles with high downloads. The top category, that is very high downloads are those with more than roughly 80 downloads per month. The top JMTM article has an average of more than 200 downloads per month.
Research limitations/implications – Download patterns for a journal may be dependent upon the specific circumstances of the journal. Therefore, the results are valid under the current conditions for a specific journal, that is JMTM, and under its current rankings.
Practical implications – JMTM authors can use the findings to get an idea how successful their publications are in the context of JMTM. This can also help with estimating the impact that their work has.
Social implications - ---
Originality/value – Different journals or different circumstances makes it difficult to compare results over time or with others. This study provides an analysis for a specific journal, that is JMTM, to help its authors.
... Besides the above general considerations, multiple factors are likely to drive JSCs and PSCs up. In the first place, along with other true or alleged competitive advantages (Pollock & Michael, 2019), open access (OA) journals are known to be more read (Davis, 2011;Davis, Lewenstein, Simon, Booth, & Connolly, 2008) and, presumably, more cited than subscription-based journals (Davis & Fromerth, 2007;Piwowar et al., 2018;contrariwise, Davis & Walters, 2011 disagree). As MDPI publishes OA journals only, an incidence of PSCs higher than expected may happen. ...
This paper takes the cue from the case of a retracted paper, cited both by the retraction notice and by an article published later in the same journal. This led to analysis and discussion on the skewness of citations in the journal Sustainability and within Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI) journals, particularly investigating self‐citations at journal and publisher levels. I analysed articles published by Sustainability in 2015 and found that self‐citations are higher than expected under a uniform probability distribution. Self‐citations in this journal make a 36% difference to the journal's impact factor. This research raises the question of what citation patterns can be expected as normal, and where the boundary between normal and anomaly lies. I suggest the issue deserves further investigation because self‐citations have several implications, ranging from impact factors to visibility and influence of scientific journals.
The growing impact of preprint servers enables the rapid sharing of time-sensitive research. Likewise, it is becoming increasingly difficult to distinguish high-quality, peer-reviewed research from preprints. Although preprints are often later published in peer-reviewed journals, this information is often missing from preprint servers. To overcome this problem, the PreprintResolver was developed, which uses four literature databases (DBLP, SemanticScholar, OpenAlex, and CrossRef/CrossCite) to identify preprint-publication pairs for the arXiv preprint server. The target audience focuses on, but is not limited to inexperienced researchers and students, especially from the field of computer science. The tool is based on a fuzzy matching of author surnames, titles, and DOIs. Experiments were performed on a sample of 1,000 arXiv-preprints from the research field of computer science and without any publication information. With 77.94%, computer science is highly affected by missing publication information in arXiv. The results show that the PreprintResolver was able to resolve 603 out of 1,000 (60.3%) arXiv-preprints from the research field of computer science and without any publication information. All four literature databases contributed to the final result. In a manual validation, a random sample of 100 resolved preprints was checked. For all preprints, at least one result is plausible. For nine preprints, more than one result was identified, three of which are partially invalid. In conclusion the PreprintResolver is suitable for individual, manually reviewed requests, but less suitable for bulk requests. The PreprintResolver tool (https://preprintresolver.eu) and source code (https://gitlab.com/ippolis_wp3/preprint-resolver) is available online.
IzvlečekRazvoj znanosti spremlja tudi rast znanstvenih objav, predvsem v obliki člankov v recenziranih znanstvenih revijah. Analizirali smo znanstvene članke iz 14 mednarodnih znanstvenih revij z dejavnikom vpliva s področja gradbeništva, vključene v JCR vsebinsko kategorijo Civil engineering, objavljenih leta 2007. Članke smo razvrstili v dve skupini, odprto dostopne članke (članki OA) in članke, ki niso odprto dostopni (članki NONOA). Ugotavljali smo vpliv odprtega dostopa na število citatov v obdobju od objave leta 2007 do konca leta 2012. Na osnovi vrednosti dejavnika vpliva in razvrstitve v kvartile smo proučevali tudi vpliv kakovosti revije na število citatov, ločeno za članke OA in NONOA. Citiranost smo proučevali po podatkovnih zbirkah WoS, Scopus in Google Scholar (GS) ter podatke primerjali. Prvi dve zbirki sta v Sloveniji dostopni le univerzam in raziskovalnim ustanovam ob plačilu licenčnin, v nasprotju z zbirko GS.Za proučevanih 2026 člankov smo ugotovili, da je 21 % objavljenih kot članki OA in dosegajo 29 % vseh citatov v proučevanem obdobju od objave leta 2007 do konca 2012. Največ citatov je odkritih v zbirki GS. V zbirki GS dosegajo v povprečju članki OA več citatov kot članki NONOA v revijah prvih treh kvartilov, v zbirkah WoS in Scopus pa lahko z dovoljeno stopnjo tveganja α = 5 % trdimo le za članke, objavljene v revijah 1. kvartila, da dosegajo članki OA več citatov kot članki NONOA. Mestoma se ta rezultat izkaže tudi pri posameznih revijah 2. kvartila. Zaključimo lahko, da za znanstvene članke s področij gradbeništva, objavljene v kakovostnih revijah, velja, da so odprto dostopni članki citirani večkrat kot odprto nedostopni.
Purpose
The first purpose of the present study is to investigate the coverage of journal articles in Physics in various sources of altmetrics. Secondly, the study investigates the relationship between altmetrics and citations. Finally, the study also investigates whether the relationship between citations and altmetrics was stronger or weaker for those articles that had been mentioned at least once in the sources of altmetrics.
Design/methodology/approach
The journal articles in Physics having at least one author from an Indian Institution and published during 2014–2018 in sources of altmetrics have been investigated. Altmetric.com was used for collecting altmetrics data. Spearman’s rank correlation coefficient ( ρ ) has been used as the data found to be skewed.
Findings
The highest coverage was found on Twitter (22.68%), followed by Facebook (3.62%) and blogs (2.18%). The coverage in the rest of the sources was less than 1%. The average Twitter mentions for journal articles tweeted at least once was found to be 4 (3.99) and for Facebook mentions, it was found to be 1.48. Correlations between Twitter mentions–citations and Facebook mentions–citation were found to be statistically significant but low to weak positive.
Research limitations/implications
The study concludes that due to the low coverage of journal articles, altmetrics should be used cautiously for research evaluation keeping in mind the disciplinary differences. The study also suggests that altmetrics can function as complementary to citation-based metrics.
Originality/value
The study is one of the first large scale altmetrics studies dealing with research in Physics. Also, Indian research has not been attended to in the altmetrics literature and the present study shall fill that void.
Social media is one of the major channels for knowledge diffusion, including scientific discovery. As a consequence, it has been under discussion whether altmetrics can be used as an alternative indicator for research evaluation, complementing the traditional indicators such as citations. The study contributes to the discussion by exploring the factors relevant to the attention that publications receive on social media. Based on 20,310 academic papers published by the Royal Society in the past ten years, the study found that posting accounts are the major force for boosting the amount of attention received on Twitter. Timely posting and accessibility also help to increase the attention. The findings suggest that publications’ social popularity can be easily influenced by non-paper factors.
Aims
Over the last two decades, the existence of an open access citation advantage (OACA)—increased citation of articles made available open access (OA)—has been the topic of much discussion. While there has been substantial research to address this question, findings have been contradictory and inconclusive. We conducted a systematic review to compare studies of citations to OA and non-OA articles.
Methods
A systematic search of 17 databases attempted to capture all relevant studies authored since 2001. The protocol was registered in Open Science Framework. We included studies with a direct comparison between OA and non-OA items and reported article-level citation as an outcome. Both randomized and non-randomized studies were included. No limitations were placed on study design, language, or publication type.
Results
A total of 5,744 items were retrieved. Ultimately, 134 items were identified for inclusion. 64 studies (47.8%) confirmed the existence of OACA, while 37 (27.6%) found that it did not exist, 32 (23.9%) found OACA only in subsets of their sample, and 1 study (0.8%) was inconclusive. Studies with a focus on multiple disciplines were significantly positively associated with finding that OACA exists in subsets, and are less associated with finding that OACA did not exist. In the critical appraisal of the included studies, 3 were found to have an overall low risk of bias. Of these, one found that an OACA existed, one found that it did not, and one found that an OACA occurred in subsets.
Conclusions
As seen through the large number of studies identified for this review, OACA is a topic of continuing interest. Quality and heterogeneity of the component studies pose challenges for generalization. The results suggest the need for reporting guidelines for bibliometrics studies.
We model open access as facilitating full‐text acquisition, which, while often increasing cites, can reduce cites from readers who refrain from citing superficially after realizing the article is not worth citing. We test the theory with data on over 200,000 science articles binned by cites in the pre‐study period. Consistent with theory, we find that opening access to an article on the journal's website has a “Matthew effect” on citations: negative for the least‐cited articles, positive for the most cited, and monotonic for quality levels in between. Estimates for broader open‐access platforms and for cites coming from insiders versus outsiders also follow patterns consistent with theory.
The coronavirus pandemic introduced many changes to our society, and deeply affected the established in biomedical sciences publication practices. In this article, we present a comprehensive study of the changes in scholarly publication landscape for biomedical sciences during the COVID-19 pandemic, with special emphasis on preprints posted on bioRxiv and medRxiv servers. We observe the emergence of a new category of preprint authors working in the fields of immunology, microbiology, infectious diseases, and epidemiology, who extensively used preprint platforms during the pandemic for sharing their immediate findings. The majority of these findings were works-in-progress unfitting for a prompt acceptance by refereed journals. The COVID-19 preprints that became peer-reviewed journal articles were often submitted to journals concurrently with the posting on a preprint server, and the entire publication cycle, from preprint to the online journal article, took on average 63 days. This included an expedited peer-review process of 43 days and journal’s production stage of 15 days, however there was a wide variation in publication delays between journals. Only one third of COVID-19 preprints posted during the first nine months of the pandemic appeared as peer-reviewed journal articles. These journal articles display high Altmetric Attention Scores further emphasizing a significance of COVID-19 research during 2020. This article will be relevant to editors, publishers, open science enthusiasts, and anyone interested in changes that the 2020 crisis transpired to publication practices and a culture of preprints in life sciences.
Data-driven and machine learning based approaches for detecting, categorising and measuring abusive content such as hate speech and harassment have gained traction due to their scalability, robustness and increasingly high performance. Making effective detection systems for abusive content relies on having the right training datasets, reflecting a widely accepted mantra in computer science: Garbage In, Garbage Out. However, creating training datasets which are large, varied, theoretically-informed and that minimize biases is difficult, laborious and requires deep expertise. This paper systematically reviews 63 publicly available training datasets which have been created to train abusive language classifiers. It also reports on creation of a dedicated website for cataloguing abusive language data hatespeechdata.com . We discuss the challenges and opportunities of open science in this field, and argue that although more dataset sharing would bring many benefits it also poses social and ethical risks which need careful consideration. Finally, we provide evidence-based recommendations for practitioners creating new abusive content training datasets.
In this study we analyse the key driving factors of preprints in enhancing scholarly communication. To this end we use four groups of metrics, one referring to scholarly communication and based on bibliometric indicators (Web of Science and Scopus citations), while the others reflect usage (usage counts in Web of Science), capture (Mendeley readers) and social media attention (Tweets). Hereby we measure two effects associated with preprint publishing: publication delay and impact. We define and use several indicators to assess the impact of journal articles with previous preprint versions in arXiv. In particular, the indicators measure several times characterizing the process of arXiv preprints publishing and the reviewing process of the journal versions, and the ageing patterns of citations to preprints. In addition, we compare the observed patterns between preprints and non-OA articles without any previous preprint versions in arXiv. We could observe that the “early-view” and “open-access” effects of preprints contribute to a measurable citation and readership advantage of preprints. Articles with preprint versions are more likely to be mentioned in social media and have shorter Altmetric attention delay. Usage and capture prove to have only moderate but stronger correlation with citations than Tweets. The different slopes of the regression lines between the different indicators reflect different order of magnitude of usage, capture and citation data.
In April 2008, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) implemented the Public Access Policy (PAP), which mandated that the full text of NIH-supported articles be made freely available on PubMed Central – the NIH’s repository of biomedical research. This paper uses 600 thousand NIH articles and a matched comparison sample to examine how the PAP impacted researcher access to the biomedical literature and publishing patterns in biomedicine. Though some estimates allow for large citation increases after the PAP, the most credible estimates suggest that the PAP had a relatively modest effect on citations, which is consistent with most researchers having widespread access to the biomedical literature prior to the PAP, leaving little room to increase access. I also find that NIH articles are more likely to be published in traditional subscription-based journals (as opposed to “open access” journals) after the PAP. This indicates that any discrimination the PAP induced, by subscription-based journals against NIH articles, was offset by other factors – possibly the decisions of editors and submission behavior of authors.
This study aims to investigate whether open peer review can improve citation count. Articles published in PeerJ during 2013 and 2015 were chosen as the data set. Two categories of the articles were generated: articles with closed peer review history and articles with open peer review history. A propensity score matching with the radius matching method was performed using 14 confounding variables. The other five common matching methods of propensity score matching, the bias-adjusted matching estimator developed by Abadie and Imbens (Simple and bias-corrected matching estimators for average treatment effects, National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, pp 1–57, 2002), and the data set excluding articles with an extremely high citation count were used to check the robustness of the results. The results of this study showed that articles with open peer review history could be expected to have significantly greater citation counts than articles with closed peer review history. Our results suggest that open peer review can improve citation count, and that the best practice for open peer review might be a compromise open peer review.
The objective of this paper is to explore the impact of preprints in scholarly and broader scientific communication. In particular, the following four indicators are used to examine the 508 arXiv and 5536 non-arXiv papers in three major journals in Library and Information Science: citations from Web of Science (WoS), Scopus and Google Scholar, usage counts in WoS, Mendeley readers and Tweets. The results show that arXiv papers have significant citation advantage across WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar in each year. Google Scholar provides statistically significantly larger number of citations and more ‘early citations’ than Scopus and WoS, but does not reflect greater citation advantage for arXiv papers. The impact advantage of arXiv papers can also be observed in Mendeley readers and in Tweets, but to a much lesser extent in WoS usage counts, indicating that arXiv papers gain broader attention than non-arXiv papers not only from the users of WoS. arXiv papers have higher Altmetric coverage and shorter attention delay on social media compared with non-arXiv papers. Mendeley readership as well as the usage counts in WoS have strong correlations with WoS citations, which are much stronger than those of Tweets. We can also conclude that unlike citations, information derived from statistics on users, readers and social media needs further exploration and in the case of social media also proper context analysis.
Preprints play an increasingly critical role in academic communities. There are many reasons driving researchers to post their manuscripts to preprint servers before formal submission to journals or conferences, but the use of preprints has also sparked considerable controversy, especially surrounding the claim of priority. In this paper, a case study of computer science preprints submitted to arXiv from 2008 to 2017 is conducted to quantify how many preprints have eventually been printed in peer-reviewed venues. Among those published manuscripts, some are published under different titles and without an update to their preprints on arXiv. In the case of these manuscripts, the traditional fuzzy matching method is incapable of mapping the preprint to the final published version. In view of this issue, we introduce a semantics-based mapping method with the employment of Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT). With this new mapping method and a plurality of data sources, we find that 66% of all sampled preprints are published under unchanged titles and 11% are published under different titles and with other modifications. A further analysis was then performed to investigate why these preprints but not others were accepted for publication. Our comparison reveals that in the field of computer science, published preprints feature adequate revisions, multiple authorship, detailed abstract and introduction, extensive and authoritative references and available source code.
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 behaviour of bioRxiv preprints, their related journal articles, and non-deposited articles published in the same journals. We found that bioRxiv-deposited journal articles had sizeably higher citation and altmetric counts compared to non-deposited 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 been subsequently 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.
Background : Since 2013, there has been a dramatic increase in the number of preprint servers. Little is known about the position of researchers, funders, research performing organisations and other stakeholders with respect to this fast-paced landscape. In this article, we explore the perceived benefits and challenges of preprint posting, alongside issues including infrastructure and financial sustainability. We also discuss the definition of a ‘preprint’ in different communities, and the impact this has on uptake.
Methods : This study is based on 38 semi-structured interviews of key stakeholders, based on a purposive heterogeneous sampling approach and undertaken between October 2018 and January 2019. Interviewees were primarily drawn from biology, chemistry and psychology, where use of preprints is growing. Interviews were recorded, transcribed and subjected to thematic analysis to identify trends. Interview questions were designed based on Innovation Diffusion Theory, which was also used to interpret our results.
Results : Participants were conscious of the rising prominence of preprints and cited early and fast dissemination as their most appealing feature. Preprints were also considered to enable broader access to scientific literature and increased opportunities for informal commenting. The main concerns related to the lack of quality assurance and the ‘Ingelfinger rule’. We identified trust as an essential factor in preprint posting, and highlight the enabling role of Twitter in showcasing preprints.
Conclusions : The preprints landscape is evolving fast, and disciplinary communities are at different stages in the innovation diffusion process. The landscape is characterised by experimentation, which leads to the conclusion that a one-size-fits-all approach to preprints is not feasible. Cooperation and active engagement between the stakeholders involved will play an important role going forward. We share questions for the further development of the preprints landscape, with the most important being whether preprint posting will develop as a publisher- or researcher-centric practice.
By implementing more transparent research practices, authors have the opportunity to stand out and showcase work that is more reproducible, easier to build upon, and more credible. Scientists gain by making work easier to share and maintain within their own laboratories, and the scientific community gains by making underlying data or research materials more available for confirmation or making new discoveries. The following protocol gives authors step‐by‐step instructions for using the free and open source Open Science Framework (OSF) to create a data management plan, preregister their study, use version control, share data and other research materials, or post a preprint for quick and easy dissemination.
While many authors believe that their work has a greater research impact if it is freely available, studies to demonstrate that impact are few. This study looks at articles in four disciplines at varying stages of adoption of open access—philosophy, political science, electrical and electronic engineering and mathematics—to see if they have a greater impact, as measured by citations in the ISI Web of Science database, if their authors make them freely available on the Internet. The finding is that, across all four disciplines, freely available articles do have a greater research impact. Shedding light on this category of open access reveals that scholars in diverse disciplines are both adopting open access practices and being rewarded for it.
To determine how often reprints of scientific publications are shared online, whether journal readership level is a predictor, how the amount of file sharing changes with the age of the article, and to what degree open access publications are shared on non-journal websites.
The internet was searched using an application programming interface to Google, a popular and freely available search engine.
The proportion of reprints of journal articles published between 1994 and 2004 from within 13 subscription based and four open access journals that could be located online at non-journal websites.
The probability that an article could be found online at a non-journal website correlated with the journal impact factor and the time since initial publication. Papers from higher impact journals and more recent articles were more likely to be located. On average, for the high impact journal articles published in 2003, over a third could be located at non-journal websites. Similar trends were observed for the delayed or full open access publications.
Decentralised sharing of scientific reprints through the internet creates a degree of de facto open access that, though highly incomplete in its coverage, is none the less biased towards publications of higher popular demand.
The design of a publisher's electronic interface can have a measurable effect on electronic journal usage statistics. A study of journal usage from six COUNTER-compliant publishers at thirty-two research institutions in the United States, the United Kingdom and Sweden indicates that the ratio of PDF to HTML views is not consistent across publisher interfaces, even after controlling for differences in publisher content. The number of fulltext downloads may be artificially inflated when publishers require users to view HTML versions before accessing PDF versions or when linking mechanisms, such as CrossRef, direct users to the full text, rather than the abstract, of each article. These results suggest that usage reports from COUNTER-compliant publishers are not directly comparable in their current form. One solution may be to modify publisher numbers with adjustment factors deemed to be representative of the benefit or disadvantage due to its interface. Standardization of some interface and linking protocols may obviate these differences and allow for more accurate cross-publisher comparisons.
We have used data from ADS, AAS, and astro-ph, to study the publishing, preprint posting, and citation patterns for papers published in the ApJ in 1999 and 2002. This allowed us to track statistical trends in author demographics, preprint posting habits, and citation rates for ApJ papers as a whole and across various subgroups and types of ApJ papers. The most interesting results are the frequencies of use of the astro-ph server across various subdisciplines of astronomy, and the impact that such posting has on the citation history of the subsequent ApJ papers. By 2002 72% of ApJ papers were posted as astro-ph preprints, but this fraction varies from 22-95% among the subfields studied. A majority of these preprints (61%) were posted after the papers were accepted at ApJ, and 88% were posted or updated after acceptance. On average, ApJ papers posted on astro-ph are cited more than twice as often as those that are not posted on astro-ph. This difference can account for a number of other, secondary citation trends, including some of the differences in citation rates between journals and different subdisciplines. Preprints clearly have supplanted the journals as the primary means for initially becoming aware of papers, at least for a large fraction of the ApJ author community. Publication in a widely-recognized peer-reviewed journal remains as the primary determinant of the impact of a paper, however. For example, conference proceedings papers posted on astro-ph are also cited twice as frequently as those that are not posted, but overall such papers are still cited 20 times less often than the average ApJ paper. These results provide insights into how astronomical research is currently disseminated by authors and ingested by readers.
It has been shown (S. Lawrence, 2001, Nature, 411, 521) that journal articles
which have been posted without charge on the internet are more heavily cited
than those which have not been. Using data from the NASA Astrophysics Data
System (ads.harvard.edu) and from the ArXiv e-print archive at Cornell
University (arXiv.org) we examine the causes of this effect.
Scientific publications are cited to a variable extent. Distributions of article citedness are therefore found to be very skewed even for articles written by the same author, approaching linearity in a semilog plot. It is suggested that this pattern reflects a basic probability distribution with some similarity to the upper part of a normal (Gaussian) distribution. Such a distribution would be expected for various kinds of highly specialized human activity, parallels being found in the distribution of performance by top athletes and in the publication activity of university scientists. A similar skewness in the distribution of mean citedness of different authors may combine with the variability in citedness of each author's articles to form a two-leveled citational hierarchy. Such a model would be capable of accounting for the extremely skewed distribution of citedness observed for all articles within a scientific field, which approaches linearity in a double-log rather than in a semilog plot.
Statistical relationships between downloads from ScienceDirect of documents in Elsevier's electronic journal <I
The way to test the impact advantage of Open Access (OA) is not to compare the citation impact factors of OA and non-OA journals but to compare the citation counts of individual OA and non-OA articles appearing in the same (non-OA) journals. Such ongoing comparisons are revealing dramatic citation advantages for OA.
Articles freely available online are more highly cited. For greater impact and faster scientific progress, authors and publishers should aim to make research easy to access.
The rise in the use of the arXiv preprint server (astro-ph) over the past decade has led to a major shift in the way astronomical research is disseminated. Schwarz & Kennicutt (2004) recently found that Astrophysical Journal papers posted to astro-ph are cited roughly twice as often as papers that are not posted, suggesting that the preprint server has become the primary resource for many astronomers to keep up with the literature. I describe a simple method to determine the adoption rate and citation impact of astro-ph over time for any journal using NASA's Astrophysics Data System (ADS). I use the ADS to document the rise in the adoption of astro-ph for three major astronomy journals, and to conduct a broad survey of the citation impact of astro-ph in 13 different journals. I find that the factor of two boost in citations for astro-ph papers is a common feature across most of the major astronomy journals.
Do open-access articles have a greater research impact?, College & Available: http://eprints.rclis.org/archive
- K Antelman
Free online availability substantially increases a paper’s impact Available: http://www.nature.com/cgi-taf/DynaPage.taf?file=/nature/journal/v411/n6837/full/411521a0_fs
- S Lawrence
Mathematics articles in arXiv
- P M Davis
- M J Fromerth
- P M Davis
- M J Fromerth
P. M. DAVIS, M. J. FROMERTH: Mathematics articles in arXiv Scientometrics 71 (2007) P. M. DAVIS, M. J. FROMERTH: Mathematics articles in arXiv Scientometrics 71 (2007) References
Do two arbitrary processes have the same mean?
- W Guthrie
W. GUTHRIE, Do two arbitrary processes have the same mean?, In: NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods, NIST, 2005. Available:
http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/prc/section3/prc35.htm
In: NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods, NIST
- W Guthrie
- Loess Lowess
W. GUTHRIE, LOESS (aka LOWESS), In: NIST/SEMATECH e-Handbook of Statistical Methods, NIST, 2005. Available: http://www.itl.nist.gov/div898/handbook/pmd/section1/pmd144.htm
Nonparametric statistics: an introduction Quantitative applications in the social sciences
- J D Gibbons
J. D. GIBBONS, Nonparametric statistics: an introduction. Quantitative applications in the social sciences. Vol. 90. 1993, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
The effect of use and access on citations, Information Processing and Management
- M. J. Kurtz