本文關(guān)鍵詞：高能物理學(xué)論文，由筆耕文化傳播整理發(fā)布。

 

王應(yīng)寬 編譯

2009-07-20

UTC-6 CST

UMN, St Paul

 

 

高能物理學(xué)論文在arXiv中的開放倉儲產(chǎn)生5倍的引用優(yōu)勢

 

 

Gentil-Beccot等對高能物理學(xué)領(lǐng)域人們閱讀與引用行為的重要研究，得出以下有充分根據(jù)的結(jié)論：

 

（1）開放存取研究論文可以顯著增加其影響。

 

（2）論文開放存取越早，其影響越大。

 

（3）高能物理學(xué)研究人員是最早將其論文開放存取的（始于1991年，而且是在沒有被要求的情況下自愿做的）。

 

（4）金色OA并未在綠色OA基礎(chǔ)上產(chǎn)生更進一步的影響優(yōu)勢。

 

但是，在理解此文時需要記住以下附加說明：

 

 

 

 

 

結(jié) 論

 

 

3）在“金色的”開放存取期刊發(fā)表論文沒有額外增加明顯的引用優(yōu)勢。

 

 

1 無論對于個體的作者，，還是學(xué)科整體，免費及時的傳播學(xué)術(shù)思想都具有巨大的優(yōu)勢，可加快科學(xué)研究的進程。

 

2 開放存取在高能物理學(xué)領(lǐng)域的優(yōu)勢盡顯，且沒有強制要求，也沒有爭辯。廣泛的采納開放存取源于對作者自身的直接利益。

 

3 同行評審期刊作為科學(xué)交流的工具喪失了其應(yīng)有的地位，而學(xué)術(shù)交流的途徑事實上已轉(zhuǎn)向?qū)W科倉儲。

 

 

附：背景小知識

 

綠色開放存�。�Green OA）VS. 金色開放存�。�Gold OA）

 

根據(jù)布達佩斯開放存取倡議（BOAI），主要有兩種開放存取途徑，即自己存檔或開放倉儲，開放存取期刊。Stevan Harnad把BOAI-1（開放存檔）和BOAI-2（開放存取期刊）實現(xiàn)開放存取的兩種策略，對應(yīng)稱為綠色之路和金色之路。Keith G Jeffery也采用這種提法。綠色之路，又稱綠色開放存�。℅reen OA）, 指作者可以對自己論文的預(yù)印本、后印本、經(jīng)同行評審過的會議論文或?qū)ＶM行存檔，提供開放訪問。綠色之路通過與各種出版系統(tǒng)并存合作實現(xiàn)出版物的免費訪問，但其自己并不真正出版。金色之路，又稱金色開放存�。℅old OA），指作者或作者所在機構(gòu)向出版者付費在開放存取期刊發(fā)表論文，出版者自出版之日起就提供論文的免費訪問。金色之路是一種電子出版，但目前大多數(shù)電子出版物都是非OA模式，通過付費訪問（Toll-access）獲取訂閱費。OA期刊和OA存檔或倉儲的主要區(qū)別在于OA期刊實行同行評審機制，而OA存檔沒有采用同行評審，其它的差別，特別是創(chuàng)建和運行成本與困難等均源于此。這兩種途經(jīng)并非截然對立、相互排斥，而可以共存，并可對其進行有機整合。

 

摘自：王應(yīng)寬. 中國科技學(xué)術(shù)期刊的開放存取出版研究[博士論文].北京:北京大學(xué),2006,12. 

另參見博文：?id=21497

 

 

引用：Gentil-Beccot, Anne; Salvatore Mele, Travis Brooks (2009) Citing and Reading Behaviours in High-Energy Physics: How a Community Stopped Worrying about Journals and Learned to Love Repositories.

 

 

This is an important study, and most of its conclusions are valid:

 

(1) Making research papers open access (OA) dramatically increases their impact.

(2) The earlier that papers are made OA, the greater their impact.

(3) High Energy Physics (HEP) researchers were among the first to make their papers OA (since 1991, and they did it without needing to be mandated to do it!) 

(4) Gold OA provides no further impact advantage over and above Green OA.

 

However, the following caveats need to be borne in mind, in interpreting this paper:

 

(a) HEP researchers have indeed been providing OA since 1991, unmandated (and computer scientists have been doing so since even earlier). But in the ensuing years, the only other discipline that has followed suit, unmandated, has been economics, despite the repeated demonstration of the Green OA impact advantage across all disciplines. So whereas still further evidence (as in this paper by Gentil-Beccot et al) confirming that OA increases impact is always very welcome, that evidence will not be sufficient to induce enough researchers to provide OA; only mandates from their institutions and funders can ensure that they do so.

 

(b) From the fact that when there is a Green OA version available, users prefer to consult that Green OA version rather than the journal version, it definitely does not follow that journals are no longer necessary. Journals are (and always were) essentially peer-review service-providers and cerifiers, and they still are. That essential function is indispensable. HEP researchers continue to submit their papers to peer-reviewed journals, as they always did; and they deposit both their unrefereed preprints and then their refereed postprints in arxiv (along with the journal reference). None of that has changed one bit.

 

(c) Although it has not been systematically demonstrated, it is likely that in fields like HEP and astrophysics, the journal affordability/accessibility problem is not as great as in many other fields. OA's most important function is to provide immediate access to those who cannot afford access to the journal version. Hence the Early Access impact advantage in HEP -- arising from making preprints OA well before the published version is available -- translates, in the case of most other fields, into the OA impact advantage itself, because without OA many potential users simply do not have access even after publication, hence cannot make any contribution to the article's impact. 

 

(d) Almost no one has ever argued (let alone adduced evidence) that Gold OA provides a greater OA advantage than Green OA. The OA advantage is the OA advantage, whether Green or Gold. (It just happens to be easier and more rigorous to test and demonstrate the OA advantage through within-journal comparisons [i.e Green vs. non-Green articles] than between-journal comparisons [Gold vs. non-Gold journals].)

 

Stevan Harnad

EXCERPTS: from Gentil-Beccot et al:

 

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....

 

...

 

...arXiv was first based on e-mail and then on the web, becoming the first repository and the first “green” Open Access5 platform... With the term “green” Open Access we denote the free online availability of scholarly publications in a repository. In the case of HEP, the submission to these repositories, typically arXiv, is not mandated by universities or funding agencies, but is a free choice of authors seeking peer recognition and visibility... The results of an analysis of SPIRES data on the citation behaviour of HEP scientists is presented... demonstrat[e] the “green” Open Access advantage in HEP... With the term “gold” Open Access we denote the free online availability of a scholarly publication on the web site of a scientific journals.... There is no discernable citation advantage added by publishing articles in “gold” Open Access journals...

 

...

 

Conclusions

 

Scholarly communication is at a cross road of new technologies and publishing models. The analysis of almost two decades of use of preprints and repositories in the HEP community provides unique evidence to inform the Open Access debate, through four main findings:

 

1. Submission of articles to an Open Access subject repository, arXiv, yields a citation advantage of a factor five.

 

2. The citation advantage of articles appearing in a repository is connected to their dissemination prior to publication, 20% of citations of HEP articles over a two-year period occur before publication.

 

3. There is no discernable citation advantage added by publishing articles in “gold” Open Access journals.

 

 

4. HEP scientists are between four and eight times more likely to download an article in its preprint form from arXiv rather than its final published version on a journal web site.

 

Taken together these findings lead to three general conclusions about scholarly communication in HEP, as a discipline that has long embraced green Open Access:

 

1. There is an immense advantage for individual authors, and for the discipline as a whole, in free and immediate circulation of ideas, resulting in a faster scientific discourse.

 

2. The advantages of Open Access in HEP come without mandates and without debates. Universal adoption of Open Access follows from the immediate benefits for authors.

 

3. Peer-reviewed journals have lost their role as a means of scientific discourse, which has effectively moved to the discipline repository.

 

HEP has charted the way for a possible future in scholarly communication to the full benefit of scientists, away from over three centuries of tradition centred on scientific journals. However, HEP peer-reviewed journals play an indispensable role, providing independent accreditation, which is necessary in this field as in the entire, global, academic community. The next challenge for scholarly communication in HEP, and for other disciplines embracing Open Access, will be to address this novel conundrum. Efforts in this direction have already started, with initiatives such as SCOAP3...

 

 

上一篇：美國訪學(xué)見聞（5）：博伊西與月面環(huán)形山火山口
下一篇：美國訪學(xué)見聞（6）：神奇的黃石國家公園

  本文關(guān)鍵詞：高能物理學(xué)論文，由筆耕文化傳播整理發(fā)布。

本文編號：103265