41

I'm undergraduate student in Physics, I wonder what is the point in publishing a paper in a journal rather than arXiv ?

As far as I know, there is a fee which must be paid for publishing in a journal (It may not be valid for all journal or fields, I guess).I'm asking because If I do some publishable work on my undergrad research, what option would be more logical and advantageous ? How would they affect my future Phd admissions ?

Or if I ask my second question more generally, How would these options affect one's carrier in academia ?

  • 22
    Note that, at least in fields that do not routinely used arXiv, "being uploaded to arXiv but not published in a peer-reviewed venue" sometimes counts as "unpublished". – O. R. Mapper Jul 31 '16 at 12:46
  • 16
    You're presenting a false dichotomy -- there's the third option of publishing your work by both putting the manuscript on arXiv and submitting it to a journal. (To what extent this is possible, is of course field-dependent; in mathematics, this is usually no problem -- some journals even allow you to specify an arXiv identifier instead of uploading a PDF when submitting.) – Christian Clason Jul 31 '16 at 17:00
  • Comments are not for extended discussion; this conversation has been moved to chat. – eykanal Aug 2 '16 at 20:50
54

Papers published in (reputable) journals are reviewed by other scientists (peer review), which usually makes it considerably more difficult to publish a paper there. By contrast papers on the ArXiv only receive a brief inspection to keep out utter crap. Thus, most academic evaluations consider only peer-reviewed publications or value them considerably higher.

Moreover, often only peer-reviewed papers are considered citable, in particular for purposes of backing up your claims. This may extend to papers that are considered certain to be eventually peer-reviewed¹, but this is unlikely to apply to your paper. As being cited (by peer-reviewed papers) is another important academic evaluation metric, this is another advantageous aspect of journal publications.

As a sidenote: There are a lot of physics journals where you can publish without a fee.


¹ in particular in fast-moving fields or fields with long peer review such as parts of mathematics

  • 22
    In mathematics, (from my admittedtly limited experience) preprints seem to be cited quite often for sort of the opposite reason of the field being slow-moving, in the sense that it takes a long time to get a paper reviewed and published (even over a year, even if there is nothing wrong with it). If there is a lot of work being done in an area, the research may very well be obsolete by the time it gets actually published. – tomasz Jul 31 '16 at 12:46
  • 21
    often only peer-reviewed papers are considered citable — [citation needed] Peer review is not a prerequisite for citation, nor even a prerequisite for credibility. If you use a result from any source, you must cite it, no matter whether it is peer-reviewed or not. At least one of my StackExchange posts has more citations than at least one of my papers. – JeffE Jul 31 '16 at 19:18
  • 4
    @tomasz Indeed, citing preprints (at least ones on arXiv) is generally fine in mathematics, but often journals will request that if the paper is also published elsewhere that at a minimum a reference to the peer-reviewed version is added. – Tobias Kildetoft Aug 1 '16 at 6:40
  • 4
    It is not at all clear that peer review improves the quality of publications as much as it delays the dissemination of interesting ideas. – Dan Fox Aug 1 '16 at 7:55
  • 5
    I have seen multiple arXiv papers that seemed fine on the surface (and people were referring me to them, based on reading the abstract and the main result). But after going through the paper it became clear that it is flawed to an extent that it couldn't possibly have passed peer review. Of course many flawed papers do pass peer review, but based on my (admittedly limited) experience I trust a peer reviewed publication more than something that's only on arXiv. At the same time I do appreciate getting early access through arXiv. @DanFox – Szabolcs Aug 1 '16 at 10:36
11

Publishing in a journal typically means that your paper has been peer-reviewed. As far as I know arXiv does not review any papers.

  • 2
    There is some form of moderation for arXiv papers but this isn't nearly on the same level as traditional peer review; as far as I understand they basically check that your paper would be eligible from peer review and not outright rejected by any editor because of glaring problems. – user9646 Aug 1 '16 at 7:47
  • @NajibIdrissi At risk of derailing: see arxiv.org/abs/0809.4144 (I appreciate that over the last five years the arXiv seem to have increased filtering/moderation) – Yemon Choi Aug 1 '16 at 13:12
  • 2
    @YemonChoi According to Wikipedia, arXiv moderators apparently prefer reclassifying in "General mathematics" (or the equivalent in other disciplines) rather than outright reject papers. The paper you link seems to be formatted correctly, doesn't use grandiloquent language or anything like that, it tries to be mathematical... It's simply dead wrong. – user9646 Aug 1 '16 at 13:23
9

Reminder: publishing is about making (a work) public. From a link on your webpage, to a highly considered journal, the ways you make it public provide a stamp on the level of "evaluation" your work are undergone. Going through peer-view and being published in a journal means that a board of editors, generally with the help of reviewers, consider that your paper possesses sufficient potential value to stand among the other papers.

Nobody knows the actual value of a paper just published. It takes time to reveal. Journals and archives (like arxiv) serve different purposes:

  • journals: they are "official", and produce indices (the infamous "impact factor") of average "values" of papers published in the journal.
  • arxiv: can store preprints, set a public "first date" for a submitted paper, since peer review can take long time.

If you stick to the publishing system, you can submit your paper to a journal, and perform an arxiv upload (in accordance with the journal's rules). When it is published, you can add this mention to the arxiv page. Having a paper under review, under revision or even better published would be quite good for a PhD admission. Having a paper on arxiv only shows that you are confident enough to share your work, but does not give the same impression.

If you do not stick to the system, you can put your preprints online, and hope that the people you talk to will effectively read your papers, instead of relying on peer-review judgement done by others.

For the second question, one might consider that a huge proportion of arxiv preprints that have not been published (say, a few years later) may raise questions about the publishable quality of the work. Unless one reads them to evaluate their content (and somehow do the peer-review work that has not been done before), this is likely to cast shades on an academia career. Unless one is a genius who does not care about evaluation, think about a recent Fields medal.

5

There are a number of good answers here that get at the core of your question, but I thought I would add a supplement to make the answers more general beyond Physics:

Because some fields don't use arXiv. Or indeed preprints of any sort.

Large swathes of biomedicine, for example, don't interact with arXiv in any way.

4

This may sound silly and childish, but publishing in peer-reviewed, indexed journals makes all your little numbers (h-index, i10-index, and many more!) grow. These numbers, whichever way you twist it, contribute either some or a lot to acquiring funds, either in the form of someone hiring you or some institution/concern/company giving you direct research funds.

Sure, the quality of your actual work is important, and I'm not saying everyone should play the numbers game. But it seems like you can't play if you don't have the numbers.

  • 1
    It's not silly! That is exactly how people are evaluated in academia. But I think it strange that an undergraduate would be publishing anything that would pass peer review. It is not a typical course requirement - more likely for research degrees. – CyberFonic Aug 2 '16 at 6:11
  • 2
    It is silly because it is very possible and occurs often that someone (co-)authors a paper in a high ranking journal (s)he had little or nothing to do with. They get the credit but can't explain the content of the paper. Getting published in these high-ranking journals often entails using the right contacts, or even having a famous name in the author list ("oh, he knows what's important"). I'm not saying this is always the case and requirement, it's just a nasty trend that really has no upsides and I've seen crappy papers getting into quality journals too many times. – rubenvb Aug 2 '16 at 6:43
  • What you say often happens. For that reason many journals use double-blind review process. Of course, there are some who suggest that many fields are rather narrow, so the most suitable reviewers can deduce who the authors are. – CyberFonic Aug 4 '16 at 2:26
0

I have made a similar question (Why publish in a journal instead arxiv or in my blog?) but questioning also motivation of publishing in journals and patent implications.

And the answers leads to that conclusions:

Publishing on a journal :

  1. no earnings for me (they do)
  2. no protection (industry can use my methods and may be with unethical purposes)
  3. not accesible (a very wide number of people can´t pay for knowledge)
  4. loss on copyrights (the knowledge can be limited for the elite)

  5. I gain reputation (I´m not sure if I want that at this price)

  6. Scientist get it fast and take it seriously

  7. Free peer reviewed

Publishing on arxiv :

  1. no earnings for me (they do)
  2. no protection (industry can use my methods and may be with unethical purposes)
  3. accesible for all people that have access to internet
  4. I preserve my copyright, I can do what I want with them
  5. I gain reputation (but bad reputation too).
  6. Scientist get it fast and take it seriously (but need good endosers)
  7. Free peer-reviewed (arxiv is open peer-reviewed but it can be lost in the sea)

So publishing on a journal is very similar to arxiv, but giving away rights in exchange for peer-reviews and notoriety.

By the way ... https://www.smartsciencecareer.com/best-publication-strategy-in-science/

  • 2
    Regarding your point 7: ArXiv isn't really peer reviewed in any the usual sense. I'll also say that, in my field, most papers are posted on arXiv and also published in journals. So they're accessible still. – Anyon Sep 5 '18 at 20:19

protected by Alexandros Sep 1 '18 at 19:40

Thank you for your interest in this question. Because it has attracted low-quality or spam answers that had to be removed, posting an answer now requires 10 reputation on this site (the association bonus does not count).

Would you like to answer one of these unanswered questions instead?

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.