The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersGene Expression Blog
Where Is the ArXiv for X?
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

Derek Lowe asks “Why Isn’t There an ArXiv For Chemistry?” Where indeed. A few years ago I went to a talk given by Michael Eisen and asked him about why the biological sciences didn’t have an ArXiv, and one of his explanations was that intellectual property was more of a concern in this area (e.g., pharmaceutical funded research). That sounds plausible enough to me. But the existence of ArXiv still should serve as a starting point for people outside of the physical and mathematical sciences in terms of the possibilities. Much of the discussion around Joe Pickrell’s post ‘Why publish science in peer-reviewed journals?’ seemed to operate in a world where ArXiv didn’t exist. And it’s not just ArXiv, SSRN makes it easy to get papers in social science. We have the technology, and we see the possibilities. There are obstacles, but let’s not pretend as if we don’t have a model for some success.

(Republished from Discover/GNXP by permission of author or representative)
• Category: Science • Tags: ArXiv, Open science 
Hide 7 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. That doesn’t seem plausible at all. If it’s proprietary information they don’t want out they shouldn’t publish. It’s not like being published in a journal rather than an ArXiv equivalent is any less public. Any researcher worth their pay will be doing regular research. Further it’s not like JSTOR or other repositories are any less searchable than ArXiv. Any reasonable competitor is already going to have corporate subscriptions to online versions of the journals.

    I used to work on projects that were classified so there was no chance of publication except for the occasional side project. I don’t see the difference. Publishing is publishing and any appeal to trade secrets make zero sense. Maybe if you were talking about in-house journals there would be something. But not any of the main journals within any field that are fighting against free and open public repositories.

  2. It’s also not an either/or situation. In astronomy and physics we publish in regular journals to get the peer-review and arXiv to make sure people see it. We do both. It’s got to the point now where it’s a very bad choice to not put your work on arXiv because papers that are in both a reviewed journal and arXiv get cited twice as often as those that are only in the journal.

    And as for the intelectual property excuse – if it needs to be kept secret then why is it being published in a journal?

  3. I agree it’s stupid. The reason I heard against a chemistry version back when I was an undergrad was that your paper could only be published in one journal. If you put it on a website, it’s already out there so they won’t publish it. The actual journals will always be taken more seriously since the work is peer reviewed but arXiv is an excellent source and lets face it, if you have access to a subscription you’ll read it or if it’s free you’ll read it, but if you have to pay (assuming you are a lay reader) you aren’t going to read it. I don’t see them loosing money over it.

  4. It’s not that IP is more of a concern (although it’s a factor) but, more generally, there is a lot more competition in biology than in physics. Giving a hint to a competitor and being scooped as a result can be quite deadly to one’s career. So it’s always a balance between what to publish (= to stake as your own) and what not. Until whatever ArXiv-like depository has legal protection and social prestige that ensure it counting toward publication that gets noticed by tenure and grant review committees, there are simply too many disincentives to making unpublished work public.

  5. I like the idea of an ArXiv for other fields, but lets not fool ourselves in thinking that subscription fees serve as any real barrier for laymen and that it will somehow increase readership in these groups. The reason laymen don’t read journals is because they are hard to read. That’s why they read articles in the news or in magazines like Scientific American or Discover.

  6. @Chad
    Subscription fees are a real problem for the large community of independent scientists and independent scholars in general.

  7. What Charles said. I’d love to be able to search journals but have you checked out what a subscription to JSTOR or other repositories cost?

    As for the competition issue. There’s probably something to that but that at best means that one shouldn’t submit it to the repository until after it’s published. Nothing wrong with that. As Red Panda said above it’s not an either/or issue in physics. Good journals are as much about an award for quality significant research as anything. It looks good in you vita. It’ll affect where you get hired. But let’s not kid ourselves that this excuses the intense pressure journals put out in other fields to avoid the physics solution.

    Further the big benefit to public repositories is you can publish negative results that no journal wants to publish but which are pretty important for research.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Razib Khan Comments via RSS