Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment
Download as PPTX, PDF1 like842 views
The document discusses the role of arXiv as a significant repository of scholarly articles, comparing its output with other major publishers. It emphasizes the importance of peer commentary and review, proposing experiments to improve interaction with external annotation services for better scholarly communication. The budget and operational details of arXiv's management are briefly mentioned, highlighting its efficient cost structure per article.
![4th largest “publisher”*
Publisher New articles per year
Elsevier ~260k (2012, [1])
Wiley ~180k (2013, pers. comm.)
Springer ~150k (2009?, [2])
arXiv ~100k (2014, projected)
Taylor & Francis ~60k (2010, [3])
[1] http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/scholarly-pubs-
(%23168)%20Elsevier%20submission.pdf
[2] http://www.springer.com/us/partners/society-zone-issues/springer-s-author-satisfaction-
program/4496
[3]
http://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/?p=1816
* if we are happy comparing apples and oranges, and publish = to make public](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/2014-05arxivannotations-140516125259-phpapp02/85/Annotations-on-arXiv-to-support-review-and-comment-3-320.jpg)
Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment
- 1. Annotations on arXiv to support review and comment Simeon Warner (Cornell University Library) Peer Review Meeting, Washington DC, May 15-16, 2014
- 3. 4th largest “publisher”* Publisher New articles per year Elsevier ~260k (2012, [1]) Wiley ~180k (2013, pers. comm.) Springer ~150k (2009?, [2]) arXiv ~100k (2014, projected) Taylor & Francis ~60k (2010, [3]) [1] http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/scholarly-pubs- (%23168)%20Elsevier%20submission.pdf [2] http://www.springer.com/us/partners/society-zone-issues/springer-s-author-satisfaction- program/4496 [3] http://editorresources.taylorandfrancisgroup.com/?p=1816 * if we are happy comparing apples and oranges, and publish = to make public
- 4. Cost and effort • 2.75 FTE admin, 2.5 FTE developer • 149 volunteer moderators – correct classification, appropriateness • mgmt. + advisory boards CY2014 budget $885,987 => budget per new article < $9
- 5. Fast Fair Efficient (Let’s not get hung up on things like open access for now. For the current discussion that is just an obvious part of fair and efficient)
- 6. Commentary on arXiv • Comment articles • Separate discussion sites: - CosmoCoffee - Journal Club for Condensed Matter Physics - ... - Facebook experiment - Blogs and trackbacks
- 11. Comment and review (by peers) is an essential part of scholarship The question is whether our fast, fair and efficient scholarly communication infrastructure can assist with these elements of the process
- 12. arXiv experiments 1. Allow users to see annotations on arXiv articles or formally published versions of same article – handle arXiv formats and versioning – ids: arXiv <-> DOI <-> ADS <-> Inspire 2. Allow interaction with authenticated, external annotation services to support overlap journals or journal clubs – filtered access
- 13. opt-in authenticated/curated external (and tied to ORCID iD)
- 17. Similarly to tie to formally published version. Bidirectional. Q. When not appropriate? How to indicate?