Why Earth and Atmospheric Scientists Avoid arXiv: Navigating Academic Publishing and Success Metrics

The arXiv preprint server has revolutionized the way many academic researchers share their findings in various fields, including physics, mathematics, and computer science. However, in the domain of earth and atmospheric sciences, its adoption remains limited. This article explores the reasons behind this hesitation and discusses potential solutions to bridge the gap between traditional publishing methods and rapid preprint dissemination.

The Hesitation in Earth and Atmospheric Sciences

At least in oceanography and biogeochemistry, there is a notable hesitation within the scientific community regarding the regular use of arXiv. Much of this hesitation stems from concerns about the impact on formal publication in peer-reviewed journals. The traditional success metrics in these fields are heavily reliant on the quantity and quality of published papers, as well as the prestige of the journals in which they are published. This reliance fosters a cautious approach towards preprint servers.

Top-Down Control and Funding Constraints

The hesitancy is not confined to individual researchers but often reflects institutional and organizational norms that are driven by top-down control. Junior researchers, including myself, are generally open to preprint servers and rapid open access publication routes. However, many of us are dealing with severe funding and job scarcity. Therefore, if our senior colleagues, who often review grant applications and tenure files, view preprint submissions or open access journals negatively, we are less likely to adhere to these methods on a regular basis.

Potential Routes for Publication

Given these challenges, there are several alternative routes that have been accepted by the community. These routes aim to strike a balance between traditional publishing models and the rapid dissemination of research findings. One such route involves preprint servers like BioRxiv or ChemRxiv, which are specifically designed for life sciences and chemistry, respectively. Preprints on these servers are immediately available to the public upon acceptance, and they often come with no or low publication fees.

Another important route is the Copernicus Publications open access two-stage journals, which maintain a formal peer review process. Although not directly part of arXiv, these journals offer a more traditional path, allowing researchers to publish their papers in high-quality, open access journals while still going through the standard peer review process.

Middle Ground Solutions

A middle ground between traditional publishing and rapid preprint dissemination can be found in platforms like Digital Object Identifier (DOI) and Open Access Postprint Hosting. These services allow researchers to host unrevised manuscripts on their servers and invite public comments. Post-acceptance, the articles undergo single-blind peer review. If all evaluations are favorable, the article is published in the real journal. Examples of such platforms include Earth System Science Data (EGU) and Biogeosciences (EGU).

Challenges and Rejection

The major caveat with this middle ground approach is the possibility of rejection. If a paper is rejected, it may remain on these servers indefinitely, subject to public scrutiny. This can pose significant risks to a researcher's career and reputation, especially if the rejection is perceived as a measure of the research's quality.

In conclusion, while the arXiv or similar preprint servers offer valuable platforms for rapid dissemination of research findings, their adoption in earth and atmospheric sciences is hindered by a combination of institutional norms, funding constraints, and the pressure to publish in high-impact, peer-reviewed journals. However, through the exploration of alternative routes and intermediate solutions, the scientific community can gradually bridge this gap and embrace more efficient and open publication practices.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: How can young researchers support the transition to preprint servers?

A: Junior researchers can play a crucial role by advocating for open access and preprint acceptance in their institutions. They can also share their own experiences and positive outcomes to influence senior colleagues and peers.

Q: Are there any implications for funding and tenure if a researcher publishes in preprints?

A: There can be implications, especially if the senior review committees perceive preprint publication negatively. However, it is important to advocate for a more nuanced approach and highlight the benefits of rapid dissemination.

Q: How can we address the issue of rejected preprints?

A: Developing clear guidelines and transparent processes for handling rejections can help mitigate concerns. Additionally, creating supportive communities where rejected manuscripts can still be shared and critiqued in a constructive manner can be beneficial.