In:  Other  

Open Access in Physics: Do we need something outside the arXiv?

Over the last few days I attended the Spring Meeting of the German Physical Society (DPG) in Berlin. Physicists are considered sometime as a very special species among scientists, and not only because the characters introduced in the “Big Bang Theory” sitcom. Physicists developed the World Wide Web in the late eighties which became the starting point for all internet activities today. In 1991 Paul Ginsparg started to post preprints of research articles in a repository at Los Alamos National Laboratory which is known as “arXiv” ( ) which now consists of more than 900,000 works ( ). In many fields of physics and mathematics, almost all scientific papers are self-archived by the authors on arXiv. 

Having said that, I would expect physicists to be the ideal protagonists of Open Access (OA). Therefore I was interested to find out whether participants of the DPG meeting are keener about OA than researchers in other disciplines. I found out, however, that many of those people I talked to were not interested in OA at all. Others felt that it is sufficient to post an article on arXiv to make it publicly accessible. The first group of physicists were interested in “good” research – contribute to it and publish it in high impact factor (IF) journals such as “Nature” or “Science”, or at least “Physical Review Letters”. I then asked if all the results of their scientific research are suitable for submission in a Champions League journal. Of course not. They agreed that a significant part of their research results were published in good or average IF journals, but not in first class journals with respect to the IF. Asking them then what the criteria were to select a specific journal to publish those works they answered: a speedy publication process to achieve priority for their work. Access was not a priority in making the choice about what journal to publish in. 

The other physicists I spoke with argued with respect to OA that in their discipline it is common practice to post a preprint of their work on the arXiv repository. I wanted to know why they do this when it may interfere with the traditional publishing process. They said they want to make sure that their colleagues will get immediate access to the most recent results in their field, which makes perfect sense to me. I then wondered why they still submit the same preprint to a traditional journal at a publisher. One reason was that they seek feedback from reviewers which will be assigned by the publisher to evaluate their work. The other reason was that they seek acceptance from a journal with a (significant) impact factor (IF) which they need for internal evaluation, their career, or approval of grants. Obviously that IF “stamp” is needed for formal rather than scientific reasons. 

However, I am not sure if this will be a clever strategy to submit a paper to a closed-access journal if you to receive credits, in particular after having posted the same work on an openly accessible preprint list such as arXiv. Timothy Gowers wrote in his blog in 2013 ( ) that one could imaging something “like a cross between the arXiv, a social networking site, Amazon book reviews” and other existing elements to become either an extension of the arXiv or a separate site with links to the arXiv. I strongly feel that this vision or gedankenexperiment, as a physicists would say, comes very close to that what is needed and what be “an ideal world” as Gowers said. I and believe that in particular physicists should love that idea.