Citing and Reading Behaviours in High-Energy Physics. How a Community Stopped Worrying about Journals and Learned to Love Repositories (0906.5418v2)

Abstract: Contemporary scholarly discourse follows many alternative routes in addition to the three-century old tradition of publication in peer-reviewed journals. The field of High- Energy Physics (HEP) has explored alternative communication strategies for decades, initially via the mass mailing of paper copies of preliminary manuscripts, then via the inception of the first online repositories and digital libraries. This field is uniquely placed to answer recurrent questions raised by the current trends in scholarly communication: is there an advantage for scientists to make their work available through repositories, often in preliminary form? Is there an advantage to publishing in Open Access journals? Do scientists still read journals or do they use digital repositories? The analysis of citation data demonstrates that free and immediate online dissemination of preprints creates an immense citation advantage in HEP, whereas publication in Open Access journals presents no discernible advantage. In addition, the analysis of clickstreams in the leading digital library of the field shows that HEP scientists seldom read journals, preferring preprints instead.

• The paper reveals that HEP articles uploaded to arXiv receive five times more citations than those not deposited.
• The study shows that researchers click on arXiv links over journal links by a factor of four, indicating a strong preference for open access.
• The paper highlights that while repositories drive early dissemination, traditional journals remain vital for accreditation in a hybrid publishing model.

Citing and Reading Behaviors in High-Energy Physics: Evaluating the Impact of Repositories

The paper under discussion analyzes the transformation in scholarly communication practices within the High-Energy Physics (HEP) community, focusing specifically on the role of open access (OA) repositories, such as arXiv, and their impact on both citation metrics and reading behaviors. The paper leverages comprehensive datasets from the SPIRES database and clickstream data to evaluate these effects.

Overview of Findings

The paper identifies a strong citation advantage linked to the dissemination of HEP articles through the arXiv repository. This trend is visible in the marked increase in the impact factor (IF) for papers that are submitted to arXiv, with such articles receiving five times more citations than those not uploaded to the repository. These findings underscore the significant role that early and open dissemination plays in the field.

Another crucial insight pertains to reading habits. An analysis of SPIRES clickstream data indicates that HEP researchers overwhelmingly prefer accessing articles on arXiv compared to traditional journal platforms. Users clicked on arXiv links more than four times as often as on journal links, suggesting a pervasive inclination towards freely available preprints over restricted-access final versions. This preference persists regardless of the publishing journal, age of the article, or publisher accessibility.

Furthermore, the paper explores whether there is any citation advantage associated with publishing in "gold" Open Access journals. Given that the HEP domain predominantly relies on arXiv, making preprints available to the community early in the research process, the paper finds no significant citation boost for articles exclusively appearing in OA journals.

The Implications in HEP and Beyond

The findings from the HEP community offer a nuanced view of modern scholarly communication and the potential pathways for other scientific domains to consider. The paper demonstrates that the open, free, and immediate sharing of preprints serves as the main conduit for scientific discourse, shifting the focus away from conventional peer-reviewed journals. This change may encourage other fields to examine the structural advantages of broad Open Access strategies in accelerating scientific dialogue and collaboration.

Despite this shift in discourse mediums, peer-reviewed journals continue to provide essential accreditation functions for published works. For fields seeking to balance traditional peer review with modern dissemination methods, the HEP model highlights the efficiencies of a hybrid approach combining repositories with peer-reviewed credibility.

Future Perspectives

The transition within HEP away from journal-centric publication models suggests potential future scenarios for academic publishing. As more disciplines explore incorporating open repositories, the community-driven aspects of repositories like arXiv could serve as a benchmark for establishing new norms in research dissemination. Additionally, the findings prompt further inquiry into the long-term impacts of Open Access on research visibility and its broader implications across different fields of paper, including sociology, economics, and policy-making.

In conclusion, the paper provides robust empirical evidence on the citation and readership behaviors among HEP researchers, reflecting a paradigm shift fostered through repositories. The paper contributes not just to the ongoing debate on Open Access but also challenges the traditional roles of journals, encouraging a reassessment of their purposes and frameworks in an era where accessibility and expedience are paramount.