Monday, April 9, 2012

arXiv is for research and journals are for CVs

This post started as a comment to a recent post over at A Chemical Education, where this quote is from.
Furthermore, if we only had green OA repositories there would be another loss that I’ve never considered before: the commentaries, reviews, editorials and research highlights that complement the original research articles.
Not necessarily.  I have recently started Computational Chemistry Highlights which is an overlay journal.  CCH highlights (reviews) important papers published in the last 1-2 years in the area of computational chemistry.  "Published" usually means in a peer reviewed journal, but can also be an arXiv preprint.  CCH is free of charge and is not affiliated with any publisher.

It is worth remembering that most of these "commentaries, reviews, editorials and research highlights" are written by scientists free of charge to the publisher, and that publishing in non-open access journals results in loss of copyright, places your work behind a paywall, and funds publishers who don't always have your best interests, or those of the scientific community for that matter, in mind.

On a related topic, Google recently launched Google Scholar Metrics, which ranked arXiv in the top 5 in terms of highly cited journals.  One implication of this is that when it comes to using results for their own research, it is not too important to scientists whether it has been peer reviewed.  If a paper is in your own area of expertise, then you can judge whether the content is trustworthy, i.e. you perform your own review.  It is when the paper is significantly outside your area of expertise that you rely not just on peer review but also the perceived impact of the journal when you judge the merits of the work.  An important example of the latter is when your colleagues or funding agencies judge your CV.

Through on-line discussions I have learned of an interesting situation in mathematics.  Formal peer reviews of proofs can take a very long time, so nearly everyone is relying on arXiv for their day to day research.  It seems that the peer reviewed publications themselves serve mainly to assure your colleagues at large that you are doing good work.  As a result the perceived impact of journals and how to "get in to" the best ones is as critical as in chemistry, even though they are not really read! 

So depositing your next paper in arXiv is a good idea: interested people will find the paper and make use of it if they think it is important, even though it is not peer reviewed.  However, right now it is also a good idea to submit the paper to a peer reviewed journal because you will need to impress your colleagues in the future.  However, here one should seriously consider publishing in gold open access journals such as PLoS ONE for reasons I have discussed here.   Perhaps in time overlay journals such as CCH will be seen as equally important when it comes to judging impact.
Post a Comment