the arXiv and metrics

Open access publishing continues to make the news, or if not the news then at least the pundits' and bloggers' musings.  Following the recommendations of the Finch Report, RCUK had previously made money available to a select cohort of universities to cover the costs fees of publishing open access papers.  To partially redress the partiality, much more research money is to be diverted to pay for gold open access in a rather fairer proportionate way.  This is still a cause for concern for many people, since it still takes money away from research to give instead to publishers, and still has some unfair aspects to it.

From my point of view, this could all be fixed by encouraging a change to the academic and wonk culture to stop judging people by proxies such as impact factors of the journals where they publish, but to judge the scientific content of the work directly.  Still, until and if that ever happens, Google has done us something of a favour.  Some time ago, it started Google Scholar - a version of its search engine that searched scholarly articles.  Useful for me, certainly.  More recently it has started a rival to the traditional article metrics companies.  Individuals can keep track of their papers and who has been citing them via a subscription-free site, and metrics for individual journals can also be found.  My modest contribution to the world's body of scientific knowledge is summarised here.

Notwithstanding the problems of using whole-journal metrics as a measure of an individual article, Google has included the different subject areas of the arXiv server as separate journals in its measure.  An interesting result in this, is that in the Physics and Mathematics subject area of their metrics site, three of the top five "journals", as measured by a per-journal 5-year h-index are arxiv subject areas.  This is great.  At least if you are an astrophysicist - it says that the most cited astro-specific outlet it in the astro-ph section of the arxiv.  Sooner or later the people who insist on judging by journal-based metrics will notice this, and perhaps those responsible for the government's open access strategy will eventually notice too, and realise that they don't need to divert research money away from research.

My own area, nuclear physics, does not feature in the list.  Partly, that's because of volume, but also because of the culture.  Astrophysicists, and high-energy physicists clearly lead the field here.  I think it would be good if nuclear physicists more habitually deposit to the arXiv.  I do, and my latest submission is here (called "why is lead so kinky?" - the journal I submitted to has told me I must change the name).