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

ArXiv, PMC, RePEc, and SSRN

There had been at least three decades of systematically sharing preprints in particle physics when arXiv launched in 1991 (Kling et al., 2004). ArXiv is dominated by authors from physics, mathematics and computer science, and 64% of all arXiv articles are in Thomson Reuters Web of Science (WoS) (Larivière et al., 2014). About 75% of publishing condensed matter physicists deposit in arXiv (Moed, 2007), as do 81% of mathematicians (Fowler, 2011). Physicists deposit to arXiv voluntarily and routinely search arXiv for new articles (Spezi et al., 2013) or to stay current (Hemminger et al., 2007). Fifteen years ago, 92% of mathematics faculty and 67% of physics-astronomy faculty used preprints to support their research at the University of Oklahoma (Brown, 1999), confirming their popularity within these subjects. More physics faculty in Southampton University archived with arXiv than with the university’s IR (Xia, 2008), and 61% of Astrophysical Journal papers are posted to arXiv after acceptance (Schwarz and Kennicutt Jr, 2004), both underlining its value. The importance of arXiv is such that astronomers and physicists value peer review less than do researchers in other disciplines (Mulligan et al., 2013), which allows them to cite arXiv articles even if they have not been refereed. ArXiv seems to be central to the fields of physics and mathematics to an extent that other SRs probably do not match.

PMC grew out of the E-biomed project, which was originally modeled on arXiv and hosted preprints and postprints of biomedical research articles. Nevertheless, although biochemists and microbiologists are keen to share genomic and proteomic databases (Brown, 2003a), preprints are not acceptable as a viable research dissemination mode for chemists (Brown, 2003b) due to ethical concerns about posting non peer reviewed articles or data in medicinal, pharmaceutical, and biologic chemistry areas ‘where erroneous information can have life threatening implications’ (Brown, 2003b). In recognition of this, E-biomed re-launched as PMC in 2000, giving access instead to refereed OA articles posted by sponsoring journals and scholarly societies (Kling et al., 2004). It now also allows individual authors to submit articles accepted for publication but does not host unrefereed work. It subsequently generated PMC International (PMCI), which is a partnership between the U.S., UK and Canada for archiving life sciences literature. Europe PMC grew from UKPMC in 2012 (UKPMC was launched in 2007) while PMC Canada became operational in 2009 (PMC, 2014). Europe PMC and PMC Canada both include significantly more abstract records than full-text documents and are not exact mirror sites of PMC (Nariani and Fernandez, 2012).

Medical scientists tend to have their articles deposited to PMC or IRs but still rely upon traditional sources for published journal articles (Spezi et al., 2013). The U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) OA mandate requires NIH funded research articles to be open to public within 12 months of publication, and many publishers deposit the published copies by the end of embargo date. PMC is the largest SR in terms of archived items (Björk, 2013).

RePEc disseminates economics working papers, journal articles and software components. It was founded in 1997 as a follow up project to NetEc and WoPEc, which started in 1993 (Karlsson and Krichel, 1999; Walshe, 2001; Zimmermann, 2013). It claims to have brought commercial journal publishers and the open source community together to provide free access to research (Bátiz-Lazo and Krichel, 2012). Unlike the other three SRs, RePEc does not have funding support and relies upon volunteers. It also joins many decentralized archives together rather than hosting items on its own server (Karlsson and Krichel, 1999). As a result, it tends to link to full-text items archived elsewhere (Lyons and Booth, 2011) through its services such as IDEAS, EconPapers and the MPRA Personal RePEc Archive. By including unrefereed research, RePEc has affected the type of economics research that can be disseminated, including heterodox economics articles that would be discriminated against in major economics research journals (Novarese and Zimmermann, 2008). Nevertheless, although economists often archive free versions of their published articles online, only 27% were found in RePEc in one study (Bergstrom and Lavaty, 2007) and so it does not seem to be universal in economics.
Unlike arXiv and PMC, RePEc generates and promotes its own usage metrics. RePEc IDEAS (2014) ranks top research items, series, authors and institutions based on citations, abstract views and downloads (Zimmermann, 2013). RePEc Journal Impact Factors (JIFs) have also been used as a research-related indicator (Gibson et al., 2014), and are relatively robust for econometrics journals (Chang & McAleer, (2013).
Originating from the Financial Economics Network, SSRN was established in 1994 as a cheap way to disseminate working papers globally (Jensen, 2012). Authors can upload their papers to SSRN as green OA but publishers and institutions are allowed to charge fees for downloading their SSRN papers. Hence SSRN is only partially OA and uses a different model to the other SRs. Business faculty tend to archive their working papers in SSRN rather than in RePEc or IRs because authors can remove their uploaded paper at any time (Hahn and Wyatt, 2014; Lyons and Booth, 2011).

Like RePEc, SSRN calculates usage statistics for its publications. SSRN (2014) ranks top papers, authors and institutions in business, economics and law based on citations and downloads. SSRN download counts have been found to correlate significantly with other traditional research indicators (Black and Caron, 2006), and seem to generate interest amongst academics (Cohen, 2008). Some law faculty have even worried that archiving in IRs might reduce their SSRN rankings (Donovan and Watson, 2011). Given the popularity of its download statistics, SSRN attempts to stop gaming (Edelman and Larkin, 2014). Since external links may inflate an article’s download counts, SSRN only allows links to abstract pages to ensure that readers have a chance to view abstracts before downloading the full-text (Black and Caron, 2006). In contrast, PMC only has pages for full-text versions of articles whereas arXiv and RePEc allow linking to both abstract pages and full text documents.

Related OA Citation Analysis

There is a rich literature on the apparent ‘citation advantage’ of OA articles over non-OA articles (Craig et al., 2007; Swan, 2010; Wagner, 2010). A number of studies suggest that access to OA full-text before publication and authors’ ‘quality bias’ when choosing which of their preprints or postprints to post online are the two major factors behind the apparent OA citation advantage (McVeigh, 2004; Miguel et al., 2011; Moed, 2007).

There are few studies of citations to unpublished articles in SRs, presumably because editors prefer authors to cite published versions of articles (Brown, 2001). Frandsen (2009) found no OA advantage for unpublished RePEc economics working papers while Elleby and Ingwersen (2011) found that working papers received significantly fewer citations than did peer reviewed journal articles from the same research unit. Chu and Krichel (2007) compared citations from WoS and Google Scholar with download statistics for the top 200 most downloaded RePEc articles, finding the two indicators to be related. Brown (2003b) investigated the usage and acceptance of the Chemistry Preprint Server (launched by Elsevier and existing from 2000-2004 (Brown, 2010a)) and reported no WoS citations for a subset, although 32% of the most viewed and discussed preprints were eventually published in peer reviewed journals. One recent study investigated WoS citations to, or documents in, arXiv and found that arXiv items, either published or unpublished (including those published in non WoS indexed journals), receive fewer citations than do equivalent WoS indexed articles (Larivière et al., 2014).