Wednesday, April 11, 2007

arXiv deposit leads to 35% higher citations
And a reduction of downloads of said articles from the publisher's site as well.

In a recent article (Davis & Fromerth, 2007. Does the arXiv lead to higher citations and reduced publisher downloads for mathematics articles?, Scientometrics 71:2:203-215, 2007) the authors examined this archive and the impact pre-print deposit (1997-2005) has on citations and downloads from the publisher's site. The authors find that articles deposited have on average 35% higher citations and have reduced downloads from the publisher's site.

The authors analysis invovled a direct examination of three previously described postulates: Open Access Postulate, Early View Postulate and Quality Differential Postulate (authors preferentially depositing their better works). The analysis suggests that there is little or no support for the first two, and "...inferential support for some form of a Quality Differential".

With respect to the reduced publisher downloads for deposited articles (except for 2004, 2005 where they were identical), they has some trouble explaining these differences but suggest an intriguing possible explanation:
"The most likely explanation is that the arXiv and publisher’s website fulfill different functional needs. The publisher’s website may be better for information discovery and browsing, especially for recently published articles. In contrast, the arXiv may provide some competition for known article searches. ArXiv articles have short, permanent URL (i.e. http://arxiv.org/abs/cs.DL/0603056), which may make them faster to retrieve and easier to share with one’s colleagues."
I am quite interested in their suggestion that the publishers (may) offer a better environment for discovery, drawing users for which this is important functionality, and that empirical studies may support this. This suggests that organizations focusing on creating richer and more effective discovery tools for the content to which they have/provide access may be taking the right path (for a portion of the community or a portion of the community's functional needs).

No comments: