Exploring arXiv usage habits among Slovenian scientists
| DOI | https://doi.org/10.1108/JD-07-2022-0162 |
| Published date | 10 February 2023 |
| Date | 10 February 2023 |
| Pages | 72-94 |
| Subject Matter | Library & information science,Records management & preservation,Document management,Classification & cataloguing,Information behaviour & retrieval,Collection building & management,Scholarly communications/publishing,Information & knowledge management,Information management & governance,Information management,Information & communications technology,Internet |
| Author | Zala Metelko,Jasna Maver |
Exploring arXiv usage habits
among Slovenian scientists
Zala Metelko and Jasna Maver
Department of Library and Information Science and Book Studies, Faculty of Arts,
University of Ljubljana, Ljubljana, Slovenia
Abstract
Purpose –This study investigates how important the preprint arXiv is for Slovenian scientists, whether there
are differences between scientific disciplines and the reputation of arXiv among Slovenian scientists. We are
also interested in what advantages and disadvantages scientists see in using arXiv.
Design/methodology/approach –A voluntary sample of active researchers from the scientific fields
covered by arXiv was used. Data were collected over 21days in September 2021 using a 40-question online
survey. In addition to descriptive statistics, nonparametric statistical methods such as Pearson’schi-
squared test for independence, Kruskal-Wallis’H-test and Mann-Whitney’s U-test were applied to the
collected data.
Findings –Among Slovenian scientists there is a wide range of different users of arXiv. The authors note
differences among scientific disciplines. Physicists and astronomers are the most engaged, followed by
mathematicians. Researchers in computer science, electrical engineering and systems science seem to have
recognized the benefits of the archive, but are still hesitant to use it. Researchers from the other scientific fields
participated in the survey to a lesser extent, suggesting that arXiv is less popular in these scientific fields. For
Slovenian scientists, the main advantages of arXivare faster access to knowledge, open access, greater impact
of scientists’work and the fact that publishing in the archive is free of charge. A negative aspect of using the
archive is the frustration caused by the difficulties in assessing the credibility of articles.
Research limitations/implications –A voluntary sample was used, which attracted a larger number of
researchers but has a higher risk of sampling bias.
Practical implications –The results are useful for international comparisons, but also provide bases and
recommendations for institutional and national policies to evaluate researchers and their performance.
Originality/value –The results provide valuable insights into arXiv usage habits and the reasons for using
or not using arXiv by Slovenian scientists. There is no comparable study conducted in Slovenia.
Keywords Slovenia, Scientific literature, arXiv, Preprint servers, Scholarly publishing, International studies
Paper type Research paper
Introduction
Researchers in Slovenia, especially in the technical and natural sciences, are evaluated
primarily on the basis of their publications in peer-reviewed journals (recorded in Journal
Citation Reports) and the value of the journal in which the article was published (measured by
the journal’s impact factor), as well as the number of citations in the same group of journals.
However, the peer review process has shortcomings and limitations; for example, there is
concern that individuals from underrepresented minorities or less prestigious institutions
may receive biased reviews (Polka et al., 2018). Statistical errors can be found in peer-reviewed
publications; the question is how to avoid statistical errors in submissions and optimize
post-publication corrections (Allison et al., 2016). There is a significant imbalance in the
distribution of effort for peer review in the scientific community (Kovanis et al., 2016).
JD
79,7
72
© Zala Metelko and Jasna Maver. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published
under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute,
translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes),
subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence may be
seen at http://creativecommons.org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode
This work was supported by the Slovenian Research Agency (grant number P2-0214).
The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at:
https://www.emerald.com/insight/0022-0418.htm
Received 25 July 2022
Revised 8 January 2023
Accepted 14 January 2023
Journal of Documentation
Vol. 79 No. 7, 2023
pp. 72-94
Emerald Publishing Limited
0022-0418
DOI 10.1108/JD-07-2022-0162
Balietti (2016) points out a number of problems with peer review; assessing the quality of
innovative studies is a difficult task, even for trained scientists. Therefore, it is sometimes
difficult for a journal editor to find competent reviewers. A review for a journal must be done
in addition to normal academic duties, which often means that a scientist spends less time on
it than he should. The time between submission of an article and its publication in a journal
can be very long, with cycles of rejection, revision and resubmission (Powell, 2016;Vale and
Hyman, 2016;Huisman and Smits, 2017). In the article by Mishkin et al. (2020), the authors
model the article submission process as a Markov process. They note that this process can
take 1 to 3 years. The authors point out the following problem: During this time, another
researcher may independently develop the same or a very similar idea and publish it earlier.
In such a situation, it is difficult for the authors to prove that they had the original idea
months or years earlier. This is unfair and painful for the researchers, especially if the idea
becomes influential and frequently cited. Smith (2006) has an extremely negative opinion and
negative experience with peer review. In his view, it is poor at detecting gross errors and
almost useless at detecting fraud; it is slow, expensive, wastes academic time, is highly
subjective, is prone to bias and can be easily abused. The authors of the articles (Polka et al.,
2018;Hachani, 2015) believe that peer review would improve if journals also published peer
reviews. In the paper by Spezi et al. (2018), the authors explore the differences between the
theory and practice of peer review in open access mega-journals which follow a soundness-
only peer review policy and leave the decision about the novelty or significance of the
research finding to the community.
Early career researchers need to validate their research findings through publication as
soon as possible. They need feedback from colleagues and peers. Preprint archives help
achieve these goals (Vale and Hyman, 2016;Powell, 2016;Bourne et al., 2017;Avasthi et al.,
2018;O’Roak, 2018;Mudrak, 2020). Thereare several preprint archives available. Among the
best known are arXiv and bioRxiv, whose success has led to the establishmentof archives in
other scientific fields, for examplechemRxiv in chemistry, AgriXiv in agriculture and related
sciences and SocArxiv in the social sciences (McGlashan and Hadley, 2017). Most preprint
archives offer free access and do not charge for article submission, making it easy for
researchers with limited resources to read research articles and publish their findings
(Bohannon, 2016;Till et al., 2019). In the articlesby Annesley et al. (2017)and Sarabipour et al.
(2019), the authors enumerate many benefits of preprints, including rapid dissemination of
scholarly work, open access, establishing priority or concurrence, receiving feedback and
facilitating collaborations. Articles in preprint archives are copyrighted works that can be
referenced becausethey are marked with DOI in most archives, making the work a permanent
part of the scientificrecord. Several funders and national institutions allow researchersto cite
preprints in their grant proposals (Puebla et al., 2022;Crotty, 2018).Authors often upload an
article to a preprintarchive and then submit it to a peer-reviewed scientific journal (Abdilland
Blekhman, 2019;Bastian, 2016). Very few journals reject manuscripts because they were
published on a preprint server (Borgman, 2007). Some preprint archives (arXiv, 2019) allow
authors to add a web link to the final version of the electronic journal article. Such web links
create more confidence in the quality of articles in the archive and help authors attract new
readers (Inglis and Sever, 2017;Serghiou and Ioannidis, 2018).
In this paper, we have restricted ourselves to the arXivarchive. Currently, arXiv provides
free access to more than two million scientific articlesin physics and astronomy, mathematics,
computer science, quantitative biology,quantitative finance, statistics, electrical engineering
and systems science and economics. Article submission is free of charge. Articles do not go
through a review process, but are published as submitted (arXiv, 2022).
So far, no study has been conducted in Slovenia on the use of arXiv. The aim of the study is
to find out how important arXiv is for Slovenian scientists, what advantages and
disadvantages they see in using arXiv for their research work and how they use it in terms of
arXiv among
Slovenian
scientists
73
To continue reading
Request your trial