Search arXiv⌕ Search

arXiv · 0709.0896

Open Access does not increase citations for research articles from The Astrophysical Journal

Abstract

We demonstrate conclusively that there is no "Open Access Advantage" for papers from the Astrophysical Journal. The two to one citation advantage enjoyed by papers deposited in the arXiv e-print server is due entirely to the nature and timing of the deposited papers. This may have implications for other disciplines.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

Michael J. Kurtz, Edwin A. Henneken. 2007-09-06. Open Access does not increase citations for research articles from The Astrophysical Journal. https://arxiv.org/abs/0709.0896

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

Faster alone vs. further together: The speed and impact of researchers' responses to societal crises

Throughout the 21st century, society encountered numerous crises that demanded quick and widespread action. In the present work, we documented researchers' responses to 25 of these crises, analyzing 1,537,284 published responses from 3,262,152 researchers spanning 225 countries and territories. An analysis of publication speed and citation patterns yielded support for a proverbial claim: "to go fast, go alone; to go far, go together". Solo authors were quicker to publish responses to societal crises -- but their responses received less attention in scholarly, news, and policy venues. Growth towards large-scale collaboration was associated with increased impact; However, this team size advantage was characterized by diminishing returns and significantly varied across sampled crises. Furthermore, pluralistic machine learning modeling highlights the importance of considering additional context, such as government effectiveness and the expertise of team leaders. Taken together, results facilitate evidence-based conversations regarding how researchers optimize speed and impact in the midst of societal crises.

cs.DL↗

General Classification for Digital Knowledge: Algorithm, Identifiers and a First Benchmark

Digital libraries and knowledge graphs need a way to organize very large collections so that related works are close and any work is quick to reach. The classifications libraries inherited for this, such as LCC and DDC, are maintained by editorial staff, are partly closed, and were not built against a stated, measurable objective. We propose the opposite: a general classification that is fitted, under the constraints that make a classification usable on a shelf or in a browse list, to the same quantity that a companion survey and benchmark (Awad, 2026) ranks existing schemes by. The objective is J = D + 0.005 N, where D is the normalized Dasgupta cost of the class tree on a fixed similarity graph (Dasgupta, 2016) and N is an expected navigation cost in bits with a per-level charge. Two constraints are hard: every class is a contiguous run of one fixed shelf order (the optimal-alphabetic-tree constraint of Hu and Tucker, 1971), and new works are filed by splitting leaf classes only, so that every existing class keeps its code, label and parent. On a corpus of 10,000 arXiv papers the fitted prototype has 110 hand-labelled classes and reaches cost 0.1722 in sample (average linkage 0.1518; arXiv's own categories 0.3333; the best existing scheme reached through the same lexical classifier 0.6414, from the survey). Filing 500 library books as new works created 16 classes and changed no existing identifier. Fit, filing and scoring share one embedding: the held-out skill of 0.922 falls to 0.896 when the same fit is scored on the graphs of the two other models, and on books the average falls from 0.806 to 0.731. The scheme has also seen only arXiv, and labels for inserted classes are weak. We state those limits plainly, release the scheme as CC0 open data, and ask whether a learned, open, order-preserving classification can become a general one.

cs.DL↗

Quantifying research uniqueness with Unbalanced Optimal Transport: Case studies of ten leading universities in neuroscience

Research evaluation has developed around quantity, citation impact and, more recently, the accumulation of research excellence, but these dimensions remain largely dependent on citations, which describe how research is received rather than what it contains. We propose uniqueness as a complementary dimension and measure it with the Research Uniqueness Index (RUI), which asks how far a university's research sits from what is typical in its field, using no citations but the content of the research itself. Each researcher is represented by an embedding of their abstracts, and an unbalanced version of Optimal Transport returns the share of that work which cannot be matched into a random sample of same-field researchers, the standard population; that unmatched share is the score. Because every researcher is scored, a university is a distribution rather than one number, and we treat that distribution as the indicator: it shows whether uniqueness is spread across an institution or concentrated in a few groups. Quantiles summarise it and, being quantiles, do not reward size. Since uniqueness is defined only relative to a field, we demonstrate the index within one, neuroscience (Scopus, 2021-2025; 9,861 reference researchers). All ten universities studied sit well above the standard (RUI_median 0.40-0.53 versus 0.27) and five specialised institutes higher still (0.57-0.73), the most unique work often confined to a narrow niche that the same scores name. RUI is uncorrelated with citation impact, and a controlled test confirms that it tracks displacement from the field rather than topical concentration; results are robust to an alternative embedding and replicate in computer science and economics. The index is not intended as a league table: the gap above the standard and the researcher-level niche structure are stable, whereas the order among adjacent universities is not.

cs.DL↗