PreprintPDF Available

arXiv and the Symbiosis of Physics Preprints and Journal Review Articles

Authors:
Preprints and early-stage research may not have been peer reviewed yet.

Abstract

New thinking needs to emerge about how to reform publishing along lines that best meet two perennial needs of scientific communication. This paper discusses a model that addresses these two needs with respect to physics. Given the considerable barriers that its realization in pristine form faces, the model aspires merely to be a heuristic or guidepost. It provides an analytical framework for criticizing aspects of the current publishing ecosystem, helps diagnose problems in current efforts to reform it, including those emanating from the open access movement, and raises consciousness about certain emphases that could gradually enrich scholarly publishing. Also, it suggests bibliometric research agendas, new or further work on which can help sharpen the views in the essay. [VERSION 2 , 5/19/2019; VERSION 3 PENDING.]
A preview of the PDF is not available
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Article
Full-text available
A global survey conducted by arXiv in 2016 showed that 58% of arXiv users thought arXiv should have a peer review system. The current opinion is that arXiv should adopt the Community Peer Review model. This paper evaluates and identifies two weak points of Community Peer Review and proposes a new peer review model – Self‐Organizing Peer Review. We propose a model in which automated methods of matching reviewers to articles and ranking both users and articles can be implemented. In addition, we suggest a strategic plan to increase recognition of articles in preprint databases within academic circles so that second generation preprint databases can achieve faster and cheaper publication.
Article
Full-text available
This paper conveys the outcomes of what results to be the first, though initial, overview of commenting platforms and related 2.0 resources born within and for the astrophysical community (2004–2016). Experiences were added, mainly in the physics domain, for a total of twenty-two major items, including four epijournals – and four supplementary resources, thus casting some light onto an unexpected richness and consonance of endeavours. These experiences rest almost entirely on the contents of the database ArXiv, which adds to its merits that of potentially setting the grounds for web 2.0 resources, and research behaviours, to be explored. Most of the experiences retrieved are UK- and US-based, but the resulting picture is international, as various European countries, China and Australia have been actively involved. Final remarks about creation patterns and outcome of these resources are outlined. The results integrate the previous studies according to which the web 2.0 is presently of limited use for communication in astrophysics and vouch for a role of researchers in the shaping of their own professional communication tools that is greater than expected. Collaterally, some aspects of ArXiv’s recent pathway towards partial inclusion of web 2.0 features are touched upon. Further investigation is hoped for.
Article
Full-text available
In 1961, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) began to circulate biological preprints in a forgotten experiment called the Information Exchange Groups (IEGs). This system eventually attracted over 3,600 participants and saw the production of over 2,500 different documents, but by 1967, it was effectively shut down following the refusal of journals to accept articles that had been circulated as preprints. This article charts the rise and fall of the IEGs and explores the parallels with the 1990s and the biomedical preprint movement of today.
Article
Full-text available
The debate surrounding preprints is increasing. Preprint proponents claim that preprints are a way to shore up trust in academic publishing, that they provide an additional ‘quality’ screen prior to traditional peer review, that they can assist with the replication crisis plaguing science in part by making negative or contradictory results public, and that they speed up the publishing process because fundamental results can be presented early, serving as timely reports for the purposes of tenure or grant funding. Preprint skeptics and critics claim that preprints may represent a risk and a danger to quality-based academic publishing because they are documents that have not been carefully and thoroughly vetted prior to their release into the public domain. Thus, academics who cite invalid, poorly vetted, or false facts could cause harm, not unlike the unscholarly ‘predatory’ open access movement. Feedback on work from lesser-known groups, or on less glamorous topics, may be null or worse than from traditional peer review, annulling an initial key objective of preprints. Although there is no widespread empirical evidence or data yet regarding some of these issues, academics should be aware of the ideological, financial, and political tug-of-war taking place before deciding if they wish to publish their important findings as a preprint prior or simultaneous to submitting to a regular journal for peer review.
Article
There is an increasing trend for library resources to enable identification of cited and citing reference lists, i.e., lists of items cited by documents, as well as items that in turn cite those documents. In this article, we evaluate how two citation managers, EndNote and RefWorks, provide ways to store, display, and retrieve these lists. Then, we suggest enhancements with respect to cited and citing reference data that should be adopted by any citation management software that currently lacks them. Finally, we discuss how publishers can also do more to facilitate use of citation managers with respect to these types of data.
Article
The objective of this study was to assess how 14 large and established scientific publishers have adopted the use of preprints and how their policies changed in a one-year period between June 2017 and June 2018, if any. The core search was performed using the Sherpa/RoMEO database. Of all publishers (2516, now 2553) listed in the RoMEO database, 80.3% of the publishers examined allow self-archiving, but only half of the publishers (47.3%) allow the archiving of preprints in February of 2018, while this percentage increased to 48% in June 2018. These data were practically constant over a one-year period even as the number of preprint servers has increased. Several exceptions exist among journals within each of the tested Sherpa/RoMEO-indexed publishers, and in some cases, a reversal in policy was observed, i.e., from allowing to no longer allowing the archival of preprints.
Article
This essay traces the history of refereeing at specialist scientific journals and at funding bodies and shows that it was only in the late twentieth century that peer review came to be seen as a process central to scientific practice. Throughout the nineteenth century and into much of the twentieth, external referee reports were considered an optional part of journal editing or grant making. The idea that refereeing is a requirement for scientific legitimacy seems to have arisen first in the Cold War United States. In the 1970s, in the wake of a series of attacks on scientific funding, American scientists faced a dilemma: there was increasing pressure for science to be accountable to those who funded it, but scientists wanted to ensure their continuing influence over funding decisions. Scientists and their supporters cast expert refereeing—or “peer review,” as it was increasingly called—as the crucial process that ensured the credibility of science as a whole. Taking funding decisions out of expert hands, they argued, would be a corruption of science itself. This public elevation of peer review both reinforced and spread the belief that only peer-reviewed science was scientifically legitimate.
Article
For decades, particle physicists have been using open access archives of preprints, i.e. research papers shared before the submission to peer reviewed journals. With the shift to digital archives, this model has proved to be attractive to other disciplines: but can it be exported? In particle physics, archives do not only represent the medium of choice for the circulation of scientific knowledge, but they are central places to build a sense of belonging and to define one's role within the community.
Article
The "Data for Research" (DfR) service facilitates bibliometric studies of key terms and phrases that appear in the full text of JSTOR articles. This platform provides faceted searches that supplement JSTOR's standard search engine, exemplifying how a full text data base enables data mining for the average end-user. We provide a comparison with existing full-text databases, illustrate the mathematization of economics, and suggest a few possible future enhancements.