Related papers: Estimating the Causal Effect of Early ArXiving on …
We explore the degree to which papers prepublished on arXiv garner more citations, in an attempt to paint a sharper picture of fairness issues related to prepublishing. A paper's citation count is estimated using a negative-binomial…
In this paper, we investigate the effects of releasing arXiv preprints of papers that are undergoing a double-blind review process. In particular, we ask the following research question: What is the relation between de-anonymization of…
We claim, and present evidence, that allowing arXiv publication before a conference or journal submission benefits researchers, especially early career, as well as the whole scientific community. Specifically, arXiving helps professional…
This article statistically analyses how the citation impact of articles deposited in the Condensed Matter section of the preprint server ArXiv (hosted by Cornell University), and subsequently published in a scientific journal, compares to…
In the evolving landscape of scientific publishing, it is important to understand the drivers of high-impact research, to equip scientists with actionable strategies to enhance the reach of their work, and to understand trends in the use of…
In this study we analyse the key driving factors of preprints in enhancing scholarly communication. To this end we use four groups of metrics, one referring to scholarly communication and based on bibliometric indicators (Web of Science and…
Despite peer-reviewing being an essential component of academia since the 1600s, it has repeatedly received criticisms for lack of transparency and consistency. We posit that recent work in machine learning and explainable AI provide tools…
Open science is increasingly recognised worldwide, with preprint posting emerging as a key strategy. This study explores the factors influencing researchers' adoption of preprint publication, particularly the perceived effectiveness of this…
A public preprint server such as arXiv allows authors to publish their manuscripts before submitting them to journals for peer review. It offers the chance to establish priority by making the results available upon completion. This article…
In recent years, many studies have been focusing on predicting the scientific impact of research papers. Most of these predictions are based on citations count or rely on features obtainable only from already published papers. In this…
Double-blind conferences have engaged in debates over whether to allow authors to post their papers online on arXiv or elsewhere during the review process. Independently, some authors of research papers face the dilemma of whether to put…
Peer review is a cornerstone of scientific publishing, including at premier machine learning conferences such as ICLR. As submission volumes increase, understanding the nature and dynamics of the review process is crucial for improving its…
We continue investigation of the effect of position in announcements of newly received articles, a single day artifact, with citations received over the course of ensuing years. Earlier work [arXiv:0907.4740, arXiv:0805.0307] focused on the…
Citing is an important aspect of scientific discourse and important for quantifying the scientific impact quantification of researchers. Previous works observed that citations are made not only based on the pure scholarly contributions but…
Mainstream machine learning conferences have seen a dramatic increase in the number of participants, along with a growing range of perspectives, in recent years. Members of the machine learning community are likely to overhear allegations…
This paper quantifies to which extent preprints in arXiv accelerate scholarly communication. The following subject fields were investigated up to the year 2012: High Energy Physics (HEP), Mathematics, Astrophysics, Quantitative Biology, and…
Preprint is a version of a scientific paper that is publicly distributed preceding formal peer review. Since the launch of arXiv in 1991, preprints have been increasingly distributed over the Internet as opposed to paper copies. It allows…
We analyze the online response to the preprint publication of a cohort of 4,606 scientific articles submitted to the preprint database arXiv.org between October 2010 and May 2011. We study three forms of responses to these preprints:…
Mainstream machine learning conferences have seen a dramatic increase in the number of participants, along with a growing range of perspectives, in recent years. Members of the machine learning community are likely to overhear allegations…
How do author perceptions match up to the outcomes of the peer-review process and perceptions of others? In a top-tier computer science conference (NeurIPS 2021) with more than 23,000 submitting authors and 9,000 submitted papers, we survey…