Controversial Topics, Education, Research, Technology

Physics Papers and the arXiv

Escaping superstition
Escaping superstition by Colin Purrington

Some myths never die.  They are propagated by those who see their rhetorical utility. Rarely does anyone stop to check their validity, since checking involves real work.

In a presentation at the 2009 Council of Science Editor’s Annual Meeting, Tim Ingoldsby from the American Institute of Physics takes on a myth that has been reiterated over and over again in the case for self-archiving: that everything published in physics can be found in the arXiv.

This myth is important, because it allows one to make the often-recited argument that self-archiving doesn’t hurt publishers.

In his presentation, entitled “Physics Journals and the arXiv: What is Myth and What is Reality?” Ingoldsby presented the first, large systematic study of article deposits in the arXiv.

Employing a summer intern, Ingoldsby conducted an arXiv search of nearly 5,000 journal articles published by the American Institute of Physics and the American Physical Society.  Their methodology was painstakingly robust, looking for title variations and having all unsuccessful searches repeated by a trained physicist.

The percentage of articles found for each journal in their studied varied greatly.  While fields such as elementary particle physics and astrophysics reported nearly 100% overlap, this finding was not generalized over other sub-disciplines in physics.  Many fields showed much less coverage, many under 5%.  As Ingoldsby writes:

Only for a narrow range of sub-fields, representing at most 15-20% of physics, can it be said that the arXiv provides comprehensive coverage

Moreover, Ingoldsby’s study questions the accuracy of article metadata in the arXiv.  Less than one-in-three authors updated the metadata of their arXiv record with a full citation when the article was published.  Since the title of a manuscript may change between submission and final publication in a journal, this makes it difficult for a reader to locate the version of record.

It would be naïve to believe that self-archiving has no effect on scholarly publishing.  For some narrow sub-disciplines of physics, it has become part of the normal process of disseminating research findings.  Generalizing the experiences of publishing in high-energy physics to the entire domain of physics is a tall order:  Making a further generalization to all of scholarly publishing is even more amazing.

The myth that “everything published in physics is in the arXiv” needs to be replaced by more careful and limited statements of fact.  Only then can predictions on the effect of self-archiving be made with confidence.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

About Phil Davis

I am an independent researcher and publishing consultant specializing in the statistical analysis of readership and citation data. I am a former postdoctoral researcher in science communication and former science librarian. http://phil-davis.org/

Discussion

9 thoughts on “Physics Papers and the arXiv

  1. Thanks for the pointer! While I’ve observed quite a few times already that not “all physics is on the arXiv”, it’s very interesting to see actual data.

    It seems that the statement “all physics is on the arxiv” says more about the splitting of physics into subfields and the narrowed view to take one’s subfield for the whole of physics than it says about open access.

    Posted by Stefan | Jun 18, 2009, 2:12 pm
  2. Excellent explanation. Thank you!

    Posted by Katie | Jun 24, 2009, 11:09 am
  3. It might be just a matter of time before other fields catch up. HEP was the first field in the preprint business.
    And since HEP is well-represented in arxiv, a valid question would be if there was a high-energy physics journal that was hurt by it.

    Posted by Boris | Jul 2, 2009, 7:22 pm
  4. This is some interesting data about the myth that all “physics can be found on the arXiv”.

    I too think that self archiving does indeed have a big effect on scholarly publishing, however, I wasn’t at all aware that some of these sub-disciplines had coverage of less than 5%. I wonder if this is improving over time as the methods and practices improve.

    Posted by Woody Smith | Feb 14, 2011, 4:23 am
  5. You have very nicely explained, its probably time to really think about the difference between reality and myth in physics.

    Posted by Nasim | Feb 21, 2011, 3:58 pm

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. Pingback: ScienceBlogs Channel : Physical Science | BlogCABLE.COM - Jun 26, 2009

  2. Pingback: arXiv: un état des lieux (en 15 slides) « pintiniblog - Jan 9, 2010

  3. Pingback: SarahAskew » Astronomers lead the pack on Arxiv - Oct 14, 2010

  4. Pingback: Brian Cox is wrong: blogging your research is not a recipe for disaster « Science Technology Informer - Apr 1, 2012

Side Dishes by Stewart Wills

Find Posts by Category

Find Posts by Date

June 2009
S M T W T F S
« May   Jul »
 123456
78910111213
14151617181920
21222324252627
282930  

The Scholarly Kitchen on Twitter

SSP_LOGO
The mission of the Society for Scholarly Publishing (SSP) is "[t]o advance scholarly publishing and communication, and the professional development of its members through education, collaboration, and networking." SSP established The Scholarly Kitchen blog in February 2008 to keep SSP members and interested parties aware of new developments in publishing.
......................................
The Scholarly Kitchen is a moderated and independent blog. Opinions on The Scholarly Kitchen are those of the authors. They are not necessarily those held by the Society for Scholarly Publishing nor by their respective employers.
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 14,465 other followers

%d bloggers like this: