• Corpus ID: 44222876

Citation Count Analysis for Papers with Preprints

@article{Feldman2018CitationCA,
  title={Citation Count Analysis for Papers with Preprints},
  author={Sergey Feldman and Kyle Lo and Waleed Ammar},
  journal={ArXiv},
  year={2018},
  volume={abs/1805.05238}
}
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. [] Key Method We control for author influence (via the authors' h-index at the time of paper writing), publication venue, and overall time that paper has been available on arXiv. Our analysis only includes papers that were eventually accepted for publication at top-tier CS conferences, and were posted on arXiv either before or after the…

Tables from this paper

Releasing a preprint is associated with more attention and citations for the peer-reviewed article

TLDR
It is found that articles with a preprint had a 51% higher Altmetric Attention Score and 37% more citations compared to articles without one and this observational study can help researchers and publishers make informed decisions about how to incorporate preprints into their work.

The impact of preprints in Library and Information Science: an analysis of citations, usage and social attention indicators

TLDR
The results show that arXiv papers have significant citation advantage across WoS, Scopus and Google Scholar in each year, and it is concluded that unlike citations, information derived from statistics on users, readers and social media needs further exploration.

Scientometric engineering: Exploring citation dynamics via arXiv eprints

Abstract Scholarly communications have been rapidly integrated into digitized and networked open ecosystems, where preprint servers have played a pivotal role in accelerating the knowledge transfer

How Does Author Affiliation Affect Preprint Citation Count? Analyzing Citation Bias at the Institution and Country Level

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

Tracking the popularity and outcomes of all bioRxiv preprints

TLDR
It is found that preprints on bioRxiv are being read more than ever before and that the rate of preprints being posted has increased to a recent high of more than 2,100 per month, and which journals have published the most preprints are evaluated.

How many preprints have actually been printed and why: a case study of computer science preprints on arXiv

TLDR
A case study of computer science preprints submitted to arXiv from 2008 to 2017 is conducted to quantify how many preprints have eventually been printed in peer-reviewed venues and introduces a semantics-based mapping method with the employment of Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers (BERT).

ArXiving Before Submission Helps Everyone

TLDR
It is concluded that requiring preprints be anonymous is nearly as detrimental as not allowing them, and there are no reasons why anyone but the authors should decide whether to arXiv or not.

Scientometric engineering: Revealing spatiotemporal citation dynamics via open eprints

TLDR
The citation dynamics of more than 1.5 million eprints on arXiv, the most prominent and oldest eprint archive, are investigated, and a stochastic model for the observed spatiotemporal citation dynamics is derived, reproducing both the Lognormal Law for the cumulative citation distribution and the time trajectory of average citations in a unified formalism.

References

SHOWING 1-8 OF 8 REFERENCES

Popularity of arXiv.org within Computer Science

TLDR
What percentage of papers in computer science are placed on the arXiv, by cross-referencing published papers in DBLP with e-prints on arXIV, is measured, which has risen dramatically among the most selective conferences inComputer science.

The effect of 'Open Access' upon citation impact: An analysis of ArXiv's Condensed Matter Section

TLDR
Evidence is provided that ArXiv accelerates citation due to the fact that Ar Xiv makes papers available earlier rather than makes them freely available, and there is in a sample of six condensed matter physics journals studied in detail no sign of a general “open access advantage” of papers deposited in ArXv.

Identifying Meaningful Citations

TLDR
This work introduces the novel task of identifying important citations in scholarly literature, i.e., citations that indicate that the cited work is used or extended in the new effort, and proposes a supervised classification approach that addresses this task with a battery of features.

arXiv E‐prints and the journal of record: An analysis of roles and relationships

TLDR
It is shown that the proportion of WoS papers found on arXiv varies across the specialties of physics and mathematics, and that only a few specialties make extensive use of the repository.

Reviewer bias in single- versus double-blind peer review

TLDR
This study considers full-length submissions to the highly selective 2017 Web Search and Data Mining conference and shows that single-blind reviewing confers a significant advantage to papers with famous authors and authors from high-prestige institutions.

Negative Binomial Regression

Preface 1. Introduction 2. The concept of risk 3. Overview of count response models 4. Methods of estimation and assessment 5. Assessment of count models 6. Poisson regression 7. Overdispersion 8.

Statsmodels: Econometric and Statistical Modeling with Python

TLDR
The current relationship between statistics and Python and open source more generally is discussed, outlining how the statsmodels package fills a gap in this relationship.

Single- versus double-blind reviewing: an analysis of the literature

The peer review process is generally acknowledged as central to the advancement of scholarly knowledge. It is also vital to the advancement of individual careers.