Comments on: Downloads, Citations, and Positional Effects in the arXiv

By: Some Memorable Dishes from the Kitchen in 2009 « The Scholarly Kitchen

Some Memorable Dishes from the Kitchen in 2009 « The Scholarly Kitchen — Thu, 24 Dec 2009 10:16:42 +0000

[...] Downloads, Citations, and Positional Effects in arXiv [...]

By: What do citations really mean? « Feral Librarian

What do citations really mean? « Feral Librarian — Thu, 30 Jul 2009 03:15:24 +0000

[...] Position matters Philip Davis summarizes Positional Effects on Citation and Readership in arXiv , in which the [...]

By: Philip Davis

Philip Davis — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 20:51:37 +0000

Benjamin, I encourage you to read the article, especially the section where Haque and Ginsparg put readership and citation data together. For instance, on page 19 of the manuscript (section 3.4) the authors write: "Articles whose initial active period is much shorter than average (e.g., 3 days rather than 10) do tend to get somewhat fewer citations in the long run, as would be expected for lower quality articles, rapidly identified as such by discerning readers."

By: Benjamin Geer

Benjamin Geer — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:49:41 +0000

So Philip, your theory is that somehow everyone tacitly acknowledges that only the best articles are supposed to be archived at 4 p.m., and anyone who archives lower-quality articles at that time is subsequently discredited? I’d like to see evidence for that.

By: David Crotty

David Crotty — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:34:15 +0000

Clever researchers (as noted in the previous article on this subject) always make sure to submit their articles at the exact time that will lead to higher placement on ArXiv's list and hence higher citation and readership. It's a great example of how easy it is to game so many of the new and newly proposed systems for academic recognition. I keep seeing proposals (and systems) for rating papers with 1-5 stars like Amazon reviews, and we all know how reliable those are, right? I'm not a big fan of the impact factor (particularly because of the secret formula Thomson/ISI uses to determine it, which they won't reveal), but it seems at least a little harder to abuse.

By: Philip Davis

Philip Davis — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 15:23:56 +0000

Garnering attention has a caveat — those who attempt to gather too much create a collective negative image for themselves and are systematically ignored.

Every field has a few of these people: they respond to every email post on a listserv (copying dozens of other listservs for effect); they feel responsible for commenting on every blog post; they put their papers everywhere someone might wish to view them.

Academics have a name for these kinds of people. They call them “shameless self promoters” or SSP for short.

Self-promotion has negative consequences, especially when low-quality work is signaled as high-quality work. This, I imagine, is why the submission plot is not one giant spike.

By: Benjamin Geer

Benjamin Geer — Wed, 29 Jul 2009 12:42:13 +0000

How could self-selection lead to higher-quality articles being placed in top positions? Doesn’t everyone want the most possible attention for their article? You might as well argue that self-selection should lead people to send mass emails to strangers only about really important information.