<scp>arXiv</scp> E‐prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships

Larivière, Vincent; Sugimoto, Cassidy R.; Macaluso, Benoît; Milojević, Staša; Cronin, Blaise; Thelwall, Mike

doi:10.1002/asi.23044

Cited by 112 publications

(128 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

103

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The articles' full texts and relevant metadata are available to the public. Additionally, arXiv has been well studied from a scientometric perspective [15], and has been used to test techniques for algorithmically categorizing scientific articles according to their content [8].…”

Section: Data Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

Network assembly of scientific communities of varying size and specificity

Citron

Way

2018

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

How does the collaboration network of researchers coalesce around a scientific topic? What sort of social restructuring occurs as a new field develops? Previous empirical explorations of these questions have examined the evolution of co-authorship networks associated with several fields of science, each noting a characteristic shift in network structure as fields develop. Historically, however, such studies have tended to rely on manually annotated datasets and therefore only consider a handful of disciplines, calling into question the universality of the observed structural signature. To overcome this limitation and test the robustness of this phenomenon, we use a comprehensive dataset of over 189,000 scientific articles and develop a framework for partitioning articles and their authors into coherent, semantically-related groups representing scientific fields of varying size and specificity. We then use the resulting population of fields to study the structure of evolving co-authorship networks. Consistent with earlier findings, we observe a global topological transition as the coauthorship networks coalesce from a disjointed aggregate into a dense giant connected component that dominates the network. We validate these results using a separate, complimentary corpus of scientific articles, and, overall, we find that the previously reported characteristic structural evolution of a scientific field's associated co-authorship network is robust across a large number of scientific fields of varying size, scope, and specificity. Additionally, the framework developed in this study may be used in other scientometric contexts in order to extend studies to compare across a larger range of scientific disciplines.

show abstract

Section: Data Setmentioning

confidence: 99%

Network assembly of scientific communities of varying size and specificity

Citron

Way

2018

Journal of Informetrics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Initially set up for high energy physics, it gradually extended into other fields and gained NSF funding in 1993 [2,3]. The concerns of the journal publishers and the learned societies were placated by the gradual introduction of the system and the evident fact that it did not damage journal prestige or finances [4].…”

Section: After the Iegsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The prehistory of biology preprints: a forgotten experiment from the 1960s

Cobb

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 1961, the NIH began to circulate biological preprints in a forgotten experiment called the Information Exchange Groups (IEGs). This system eventually attracted over 3600 participants and saw the production of over 2,500 different documents, but by 1967 it was effectively shut down by journal publishers' refusal 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.

show abstract

“…Authors can make their work available on the web by posting preprints prior to formal peer-review and journal publication. This methodology is very well established in domains with lengthy peer-review cycles such as physics, astronomy, computer science, and mathematics [35,36], with a very large amount of articles posted on the special-purpose arXiv repository every day. The overall use of preprints in the life sciences however, is still not significant, although a modest increase has been observed with the launch of PeerJ PrePrints and BioRxiv [37].…”

Section: Open Access: the Right To Knowledgementioning

confidence: 99%

Do you speak open science? Resources and tips to learn the language

Masuzzo

Martens

2017

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The internet era, large-scale computing and storage resources, mobile devices, social media, and their high uptake among different groups of people, have all deeply changed the way knowledge is created, communicated, and further deployed. These advances have enabled a radical transformation of the practice of science, which is now more open, more global and collaborative, and closer to society than ever. Open science has therefore become an increasingly important topic.Moreover, as open science is actively pursued by several high-profile funders and institutions, it has fast become a crucial matter to all researchers. However, because this widespread interest in open science has emerged relatively recently, its definition and implementation are constantly shifting and evolving, sometimes leaving researchers in doubt about how to adopt open science, and which are the best practices to follow.

show abstract

arXiv E‐prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships

Cited by 112 publications

References 56 publications

Network assembly of scientific communities of varying size and specificity

Network assembly of scientific communities of varying size and specificity

The prehistory of biology preprints: a forgotten experiment from the 1960s

Do you speak open science? Resources and tips to learn the language

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About