Soliciting Input on arXiv

My post last month generated some interesting discussion, both comments on the post but also emails and in-person conversations directly with me. It seems that arXiv is only marginally used by the Earth and planetary space physics communities but is extensively used by the solar physics community.

We have started a conversation among the JGR Space Physics editorial board, AGU staff, and the AGU Publications Committee about the issue of non-profit preprint repositories and their relationship to AGU’s dual publication policy. We are trying to identify and discuss the pros and cons of such repositories, their current usage by various communities, and if/how AGU should revise its stance on this topic. The short answer is that the evidence is mixed, the opinions varied, and decision is difficult. Steadily and surely, though, we’re making progress and moving our discussion forward.

I would like to solicit community input on this topic. Please share with us your thoughts, joys, concerns, and suggestions about your experiences with arXiv or other preprint/reprint sharing sites. You can do this several ways: post a comment below; send me an email; or contact any of the other editors of JGR Space Physics. We want to hear from you and we want to include the community perspective in this discussion.


5 thoughts on “Soliciting Input on arXiv

  1. I have found arXiv to be very useful in the past, especially for review papers that do not include enough ‘new’ information to be included in JGR. In some ways, I think arXiv might be the way of the future because it allows for open review and discussion. As far as posting re-prints there, is it necessary if you’ve already published in JGR?

  2. I think the majority of solar physicists or astrophysicist are not reading JGR. However, if they could find space physics related JGR manuscripts in the arXiv, where also the laboratory plasma, solar- and astrophysical manuscripts are regularly uploaded, it would promote interactions and collaborations between these communities. Maybe I am wrong, perhaps it could increase the impact factor of JGR.

  3. arXiv appears as a very good solution for independent researcher or researcher who do not have easy access to papers published in journals. One should promote this for benefit of science. This gives more views to uploaded published/unpublished papers on arXiv.

  4. To me it’s not clear what are the benefits of not allowing arxiv posting (to the journal and the community).
    Moreover, given that all major journals (PRL, Nature, MNRAS, ApJ, SSR, Science, PNAS, etc.) allow posting on arxiv, the choice really seems to be a no-brainer.
    What is really funny is that Nature is for-profit and AGU is not!

  5. The update is that AGU HQ publications staff, the AGU Publications Committee, and the AGU Executive Council are discussing this issue. Your comments and contributions to the discussion are having an effect. Thank you very much to all of you that have publicly or privately communicated your thoughts to me on this topic. Please keep them coming!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s