The role of arXiv, RePEc, ssrn and pmc in formal scholarly communication 1 Xuemei LI

The role of arXiv, RePEc, SSRN and PMC in formal scholarly communication¹

Xuemei Li

Peter F. Bronfman Library, York University, Toronto, Ontario, Canada

Mike Thelwall

Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group, School of Mathematics and Computing, University of Wolverhampton , Wolverhampton, UK

Kayvan Kousha

Statistical Cybermetrics Research Group, School of Mathematics and Computing, University of Wolverhampton , Wolverhampton, UK
Abstract

Purposes - The four major Subject Repositories (SRs), arXiv, Research Papers in Economics (RePEc), Social Science Research Network (SSRN) and PubMed Central (PMC), are all important within their disciplines but no previous study has systematically compared how often they are cited in academic publications. In response, this article reports an analysis of citations to SRs from Scopus publications, 2000 to 2013.

Design/methodology/approach - Scopus searches were used to count the number of documents citing the four SRs in each year. A random sample of 384 documents citing the four SRs was then visited to investigate the nature of the citations.

Findings - Each SR was most cited within its own subject area but attracted substantial citations from other subject areas, suggesting that they are open to interdisciplinary uses. The proportion of documents citing each SR is continuing to increase rapidly, and the SRs all seem to attract substantial numbers of citations from more than one discipline.

Research limitations/implications - Scopus does not cover all publications, and most citations to documents found in the four SRs presumably cite the published version, when one exists, rather than the repository version.

Practical implications – SRs are continuing to grow and do not seem to be threatened by Institutional Repositories (IRs) and so research managers should encourage their continued use within their core disciplines, including for research that aims at an audience in other disciplines.

Originality/value - This is the first simultaneous analysis of Scopus citations to the four most popular SRs.

Introduction

Scholars can publicise their research in many ways, including online CVs (Kousha and Thelwall, 2013), personal or departmental websites (Más-Bleda et al., 2014), social web sites (Skeels and Grudin, 2009; Thelwall and Kousha, 2014), and Open Access (OA) repositories (Björk et al., 2010; Kim, 2010). OA repositories are websites that host academic publications and grant free public access to them (Suber, 2012). There are two major OA channels: gold OA by publishing in OA journals or by paying for the OA option in non-OA journals (e.g., Springer Open Choice) (Harnad & Brody, 2004; Laakso, 2014), and green OA (Björk et al., 2014; Laakso, 2014) by making preprints, working papers, postprints or accepted manuscripts publically available in another way, such as through Subject Repositories (SRs), Institutional Repositories (IRs) and personal homepages (Gargouri et al., 2012). At least one SR allows publishers to charge for access and so not all are fully OA.

SRs seem to be very popular in some disciplines but may be undermined by gold OA publishing in journals and publishers that allow preprints to be deposited in IRs but not in SRs. For example, the Journal of the Association for Information Science and Technology copyright form, which is one of the standard Wiley-Blackwell forms, allows, "The right to self-archive on the Contributor’s personal website or in the Contributor’s own website or in the Contributor's institution's/employer's institutional repository or archive." SRs collect publications from one or more specific disciplines and can sometimes become standard points of access for academic literature (Björk, 2013). The arXiv.org e-print archive (arXiv), Research Papers in Economics (RePEc) and the Social Science Research Network (SSRN) SRs emerged in the 1990s with the rise of the Internet, capitalizing on existing preprint dissemination traditions in physics and economics (Björk, 2013). In contrast, PubMed Central (PMC) archives full-text peer reviewed articles to fit the special needs in the biomedical and life sciences domain (Kling et al., 2004; Kling and McKim, 2000). In comparison, IRs normally serve all of the subject areas within an individual academic institution (Brown, 2010). They started to emerge around a decade later than arXiv in parallel with the early 2002 Budapest OA Initiative (Brown, 2010b). For example, the ePrints Soton archive at Southampton and the DSpace initiative at MIT are the two earliest IRs (Cullen and Chawner, 2011). In addition to research articles, IRs may also contain PhD or student theses, technical reports, video clips, images, and datasets (Brown, 2010b). In the past decade, the establishment of new SRs has slowed down in comparison to the rapid growth of IRs (Björk, 2013; Pinfield et al., 2014). Out of 2,728 repositories checked by OpenDOAR (2015), 83% were IRs and only 11% were SRs. This may underestimate the relative use of the two types because some SRs are huge and popular within their disciplines. SRs are not all larger than IRs, however, and the 56 studied SRs varied from holding over 100,000 items to less than 100 items (Björk, 2013; Cybermetrics Lab, 2014). Nevertheless, based on weighted webometric indicators (Aguillo et al., 2010) the four highest impact repositories are all SRs: arXiv, SSRN, Europe PMC and RePEc (Cybermetrics Lab, 2014).

Despite publishers mainly allowing green OA archiving (about 80% to IRs and 33% to SRs) (Laakso, 2014), one study estimated that 12% of published journal articles were green OA (Björk et al., 2014) and another more systematic and recent study found that about half of all Scopus articles 2007-2012 were OA in one form or another, although with substantial disciplinary variations (Archambault, Amyot, Deschamps, Nicol, Provencher, Rebout, and Roberge, 2014). The ‘build it and they will come’ philosophy has not worked fully with the scholarly community except where there was an existing preprints culture (e.g., in physics and economics), or a strong mandate from an authoritative funding agency (e.g., NIH) (Björk et al., 2014; Finch, 2012; Gargouri et al., 2012; Poynder, 2012). The reason for partial OA uptake could be that print journals have largely migrated online and academics tend to rely on library electronic collections to access published journal articles (Tenopir et al., 2011) and so may be confused about the need to widen access to articles that they can already see through their (transparent) institutional journal subscriptions (Spezi et al., 2013). This may explain why the high percentage of OA awareness and generally positive altitudes in many surveys has not translated into universal OA uptake (Creaser et al., 2010; Cullen and Chawner, 2011; Spezi et al., 2013; Swan and Brown, 2005). Moreover, authors tend to cite published articles rather than OA versions, and many send them directly to their colleagues, with posting to their own websites, SRs and IRs being seen as less important (Cullen and Chawner, 2011; Larivière et al., 2014; Morris, 2009).

Although SRs have been previously investigated for the relationship between OA publishing and citation counts, their level of use and scholars' attitudes towards them, little is known about cross-disciplinary uses of the major SRs, and trends in their level of uptake over time. Even if SRs are well known within a particular discipline, they may be ignored by other disciplines and hence dissemination strategies that rely upon SRs might be harmful for cross-disciplinary fertilization. Information about trends in uptake over time is needed to develop effective author guidelines and for publishers, research funders and institutions to develop research policies that are sensitive to the level of uptake of SRs. These issues can be addressed indirectly by examining formal citations in academic publications that mention SRs as the source of the cited article. Each such citation gives concrete evidence of the use of a SR to help future research. These citations form an unknown proportion of the uses of a SR, however, because articles can be read for other purposes than informing future research, and a citation in any case may not mention a SR as the source of the article. Nevertheless, the citations can be used to give indicators for the level of uptake that can be compared between disciplines and over time, as well as between SRs. Citations have three advantages over download statistics in this context: they are not affected by SR website design issues, gaming or spam that may influence the number of downloads; they allow SRs to be compared against each other in a relatively impartial way (although different disciplines have differing proportions of their research in Scopus); and they give evidence of the discipline of the user (citing author). Conversely, downloads are more useful for directly estimating the usage of a SR because a paper may be found and read based on different degrees of information needs from a SR but cited in a different form, such as from its publishing journal (Kurtz and Bollen, 2010). This article investigates simultaneously, for the first time, how the four most popular SRs have been cited in academic publications indexed in Scopus.