ArXiv is 3 times bigger than all megajournals taken together

 How big are the “megajournals” compared to arXiv?
I use data from the article

[1] Have the “mega-journals” reached the limits to growth? by Bo-Christer Björk ​ , table 3

and the arXiv monthly submission rates


To have a clear comparison I shall look at the window 2010-2014.

Before showing the numbers, there are some things to add.

1.  I saw the article [1] via the post by +Mike Taylor

[3] Have we reached Peak Megajournal?

I invite you to read it, it is interesting as usual.

2. Usually, the activity of counting articles is that dumb thing which is used by managers to hide behind, in order to not be accountable for their decisions.
Counting  articles is a very lossy compression technique, which associates to an article a very small number of bits.
I indulged into this activity because of the discussions from the G+ post


and its clone

[4′] Eisen’ “parasitic green OA” is the apt name for Harnad’ flawed definition of green OA, but all that is old timers disputes, the future is here and different than both green and gold OA

These discussions made me realize that the arXiv model is carefully edited out from reality by the creators and core supporters of green OA and gold OA.

[see more about in the G+ variant of the post ]
Now, let’s see those numbers. Just how big is that arXiv thing compared to “megajournals”?

From [1]  the total number of articles per year for “megajournals” is

2010:  6,913
2011:  14,521
2012:   25,923
2013:  37,525
2014:  37,794
2015:  33,872

(for 2015 the number represents  “the articles published in the first quarter of the year multiplied by four” [1])

ArXiv: (based on counting the monthly submissions listed in [2])

2010: 70,131
2011: 76,578
2012: 84,603
2013: 92,641
2014:  97,517
2015:  100,628  (by the same procedure as in [1])

This shows that arXiv is 3 times bigger than all the megajournals at once, despite that:
– it is not a publisher
– does not ask for APC
– it covers fields far less attractive and prolific than the megajournals.

And that is because:
– arxiv answers to a real demand from researchers, to communicate fast and reliable their work to their fellows, in a way which respects their authorship
– also a reaction of support for what most of them think is “green OA”, namely to put their work there where is away from the publishers locks.


3 thoughts on “ArXiv is 3 times bigger than all megajournals taken together”

  1. Access-Provision vs. Content-Provision and Quality Control

    The Library of Congress serials collection is also bigger than all megajournals combined — and so what? The LoC is an access-provider (to journal users) not a journal. So is Arxiv. But Arxiv (as well as all OA institutional repositories) is a (Green) Open-Access (free online access) provider — to everyone on the Web (unlike LoS, which just provides access to walk-in users).

    Authors are the content providers and journals manage the quality-control.

    (I’m not writing in support of generic megajournals, by the way, but in support of Green OA — and of journals with high peer-review standards for scholarly or scientific quality.)

  2. No, this is false. I already explained why in this reply to your comment with almost the same content.
    Your description would be considered very far from reality by virtually any arXiv author. The main aspect of the arXiv model is that it is a means for fast and reliable communication of articles, irrespective to their later fate (published or not). That is the need which led to arXiv. It is something independent from the publishing aspect. See more explanations in the link.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s