Comments on: [ArXiv] The Importance of Being First: Position Dependent Citation Rates on arXiv:astro-ph

By: hlee

hlee — Tue, 06 May 2008 01:52:02 +0000

Another paper by the same author was up in May 2008. Check [astro-ph:0805.0307] Disentangling Visibility and Self-Promotion Bias in the arXiv:astro-ph Positional Citation Effect

By: hlee

hlee — Wed, 12 Dec 2007 23:51:40 +0000

Tom, I observed important keywords are omitted because the prevalence/popularity of the methodology. Even abstracts do not contain the word Bayesian but the Bayes rule appears in the 2nd section. I recognize that many blogs offer both tag and category options and they are helpful in a difference sense. I agree with you that tagging will be useful as long as there’s a clear instruction of tagging for astronomers when they submit the paper. I saw a distinctive way of keywording in astronomy journals and those keywords could be handy for tagging as well as searching. Millions of tagging phrases make submitting/searching difficult when we have powerful search engines that scan the contents. I hope [astro-ph] adopt a smart way soon not to overwhelm subscribers.

By knowing there’s someone who sees my weekly [ArXiv] list, I should go on. But I cannot help PCE. Thank you for your positive comment.

By: TomLoredo

TomLoredo — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 23:37:53 +0000

Hyunsook, let me say that I for one greatly appreciate the work you’re doing in distilling the long abstract lists for us. I’ve given up trying to go through the daily arXiv digests myself. Even if you are missing some due to PCE, you are still doing us all a service. (But I would certainly understand if you chose to give it up.)

I think a simple way arXiv could help us deal with this, rather than (or in addition to) categories, is to allow authors to *tag* their entries, and provide tag searchability. A search for terms in abstracts can partly fill this purpose, but not entirely. For example, a couple years ago I was doing some reference counting via ADS, tracking Bayesian work. There was a steep rise in papers using “Bayes”, “Bayesian”, etc., over the past 10 years, but the rate of increase slackened in the last year or two. Part of it turned out to be that in some fields (CMB and grav’l waves) Bayesian methods had become so entrenched that use of them was no longer mentioned in the abstract. Of course, an author could omit such info from tags, but I still think it would be a useful addition to arXiv.

By: hlee

hlee — Tue, 11 Dec 2007 03:59:20 +0000

I guess it’s time to stop screening notable preprints. Unless [astro-ph] goes under changes, citing/reviewing a few preprint/month will suffer from this selection bias. I’ll come up with something different from the next year starting with unsubscribing to [astro-ph].

frustrated at 76 new + 8 crossing preprints listed today ~~ OTL

By: vlk

vlk — Mon, 10 Dec 2007 15:46:35 +0000

Clearly what we need is something like a stock ticker, but with astro-ph titles and abstracts, running in a loop in the background on your desktop or something.

Im afraid I find even your lists are too long, Hyunsook. If I may suggest, it will be more helpful to highlight one or two preprints at a time.

Let me also go on record at this time saying that I loathe and detest citation indices. (Well, not them so much as their use to measure the importance of some work. And I say so even though our wavdetect paper is one of the most cited of all Chandra related papers.) This study just reinforces my view that they are arbitrary, capricious, and unreliable data to measure anything useful, and have large systematic biases that are completely ignored — nay, not even suspected.