ADS and the Open Journal of Astrophysics

Most if not all of the authors of papers published in the Open Journal of Astrophysics, along with a majority of astrophysicists in general, use the NASA/SAO Astrophysics Data System (ADS) as an important route to the research literature in their domain, including bibliometric statistics and other information. Indeed this is the most important source of such data for most working astrophysicists. In light of this we have been taking steps to facilitate better interaction between the Open Journal of Astrophysics and the ADS.

First, note that journals indexed by ADS are assigned a short code that makes it easier to retrieve a publication. For reference, the short code for the Open Journal of Astrophysics is OJAp. For example, the 12 papers published by the Open Journal of Astrophysics can be found on ADS here.

If you click the above link you will find that the papers published more recently have not got their citations assigned yet. When we publish a paper at the Open Journal of Astrophysics we assign a DOI and deposit it and related metadata to a system called CrossRef which is accessed by ADS to populate bibliographic fields in its own database. ADS also assigns a unique bibliometric code it generates itself (based on the metadata it obtains from Crossref). This process can take a little while, however, as both Crossref and ADS update using batch processes, the latter usually running only at weekends. This introduces a significant delay in aggregating the citations acquired via different sources.

To complicate things further, papers submitted to the arXiv as preprints are indexed on ADS as preprints and only appear as journal articles when they are published. Among other things, citations from the preprint version are then aggregated on the system with those of the published article, but it can take a while before this process is completed, particularly if an author does not update the journal reference on arXiv.

For a combination of reasons, therefore, the papers we have published in the past have sometimes appeared on ADS out of order. On top of this, of the 12 papers published in 2019, there is one assigned a bibliometric code ending in 13 by ADS and none numbered 6! This is not too much a problem as the ADS identifiers are unique, but the result is not as tidy as it might be.

To further improve our service to the community, we have decided at the Open Journal of Astrophysics that from now on we will speed up this interaction with ADS by depositing information directly at the same time as we lodge it with Crossref. This means that (a) ADS does not have to rely on authors updating the arXiv field and (b) we can give ADS directly information that is not lodged at Crossref.

I hope this clarifies the situation.

32 Responses to “ADS and the Open Journal of Astrophysics”

  1. Peter, what about inspirehep.net? Are you in touch with them? Are they familiar with OJA? They archive most astro-ph papers

  2. Yes, but for some of them the paper is not correctly indexed. For my latest paper, I had to email them to include the doi.

  3. “This means that (a) ADS does not have to rely on authors updating the arXiv field”

    Nevertheless, authors should update the journal-reference field at arXiv, because it makes it obvious that the paper has been accepted. The comments field can say this as well, but a) it is easier to check the journal-reference field and b) people who put their papers on arXiv first can at best say that they have been submitted to the OJA.

  4. “For example, the 12 papers published by the Open Journal of Astrophysics can be found on ADS here.”

    Note that the highest identifier is 13, even though there are 12 papers. This is because there is no paper with article-ID 6. 😐

  5. “First, note that journals indexed by ADS are assigned a short code that makes it easier to retrieve a publication.”

    “To complicate things further, papers submitted to the arXiv as preprints are indexed on ADS as preprints and only appear as journal articles when they are published.”

    It’s even more complicated. Papers at arXiv get an identifier very quickly, within a day, I believe. It has the format arXiv:<YYMM.nnnnn>, e.g. arXiv:1905.13189. <YYMM.nnnnn> is the arXiv identifier.

    As far as I know, these are permanent. The links to ADS from arXiv are of this form. When the paper has proper bibliographic data at arXiv, it gets assigned an ADS bibcode, which forms part of the URL. The links to ADS from arXiv are redirected to the bibcode links. (Note that the arXiv identifier mentioned above, with only 16 characters, is not a proper ADS bibcode, which have 19 characters. The arXiv-ID is always used. For old papers, it can be longer, e.g. something like astro-ph/9603028.)

    As long as the paper doesn’t have bibliographic data at ADS, it gets assigned another identifier containing the arXiv ID: <YYYY>arXiv<YYMMnnnnnI>, e.g. 2019arXiv190513189P. <YYMMnnnnnI> is the arXiv identifier, but without the dot, and <I> is the first letter of the last name of the first author. This is the permanent bibcode at ADS as long as (ADS thinks that) the paper is arXiv-only. (I believe that these always continue to work, but get redirected to the proper bibcode-ID some time after the latter comes into existence.)

    Of the papers at the OJA website, the paper by F. Feroz, M.P. Hobson, E. Cameron, A.N. Pettitt (volume 2 ID 10) still redirects to the long form of the arXiv identifier at ADS, even though the proper bibcode exists. The same goes for the paper by Katarina Markovic, Benjamin Bose, Alkistis Pourtsidou (volume 2 ID 13). I’m not sure why that is. (The two papers from volume 3 apparently don’t yet have a proper ADS bibcode (at least, not the expected one) and are accessible only under the arXiv bibcode. They are relatively new, however.)

    Summary: All arXiv papers are accessible under two ADS URLs which contain “arXiv” in the name. As far as I know, these are permanent in the sense that they will always work. When an ADS bibcode has been assigned, then the paper is also accessible under this bibcode. Eventually, both “arXiv”-style ADS URLs will redirect to the ADS bibcode URL. (At arXiv, the link to ADS keeps the “improper bibcode” format even after the paper has a proper bibcode.)

    • telescoper Says:

      I see also that ADS has not yet managed to aggregate citations for the Feroz et al paper, which is presumably connected to the issue you mention.

      I check a few papers ion inspire.hep yesterday and according to that source the Feroz et al. paper has 327, which I think is an underestimate! Let’s see what appears on ADS when it finally appears.

      Incidentally, your OJA paper has not made it onto ADS yet but is already on inspire.

      • I’ve never spent much time at inspire—I just wasn’t inspired to do so. I think at some point I noticed that ADS had more of my stuff (which is still the case, though to a lesser extent) and assumed (probably correctly) that the astronomical community was more at home at ADS (especially with the old, lean, fast interface). Maybe I should check it out.

        My paper is at ADS, but is accessible only via the two arXiv-style URLs mentioned above.

      • telescoper Says:

        Inspire’s coverage of astro papers is not as consistent as ADS but people who work in astroparticle physics etc seem to use it a lot.

      • Right; I’ve always thought of it as more a particle-physics thing.

        There are many people who work in astroparticle physics, but who has worked in (or even made significant contributions to) non-astro particle physics and non-particle astrophysics? Steven Weinberg comes to mind. Penny Sackett too, but this was more a case of switching fields, whereas Weinberg oscillated (there is a joke in there somewhere). Saul Perlmutter used to be a particle physicist (again a field-switcher). I suspect that many students have switched from astronomy to particle physics or vice versa, but usually at an early career stage.

        As a Vermeer fan, one has to dig this portrait of Penny.
        I see that she has changed fields again and is now fighting climate change in Australia.

      • I think it takes time for the arXiv bibcode to change ADS bibcode after the paper is accepted. (however somtimes you need to email them.They had not done it for a 2014 paper and emailed them).

      • “I think it takes time for the arXiv bibcode to change ADS bibcode after the paper is accepted. (however somtimes you need to email them.They had not done it for a 2014 paper and emailed them).”

        This should definitely be automatic. People shouldn’t have to email ADS. Having said that, nothing is perfect, and when I’ve emailed them about the odd bug it was always fixed quickly by a friendly staff.

        Any idea how long it usually takes for the bibcode to switch?

      • “I see also that ADS has not yet managed to aggregate citations for the Feroz et al paper, which is presumably connected to the issue you mention.”

        It now has 439 or 438 according to ADS (the former on the main page for the paper, the latter on the citations page). However, it still has the arXiv bibcode at ADS.

      • telescoper Says:

        It must be in the process of updating..

    • I wrote:

      As long as the paper doesn’t have bibliographic data at ADS, it gets assigned another identifier containing the arXiv ID: arXiv, e.g. 2019arXiv190513189P. is the arXiv identifier, but without the dot, and is the first letter of the last name of the first author. This is the permanent bibcode at ADS as long as (ADS thinks that) the paper is arXiv-only. (I believe that these always continue to work, but get redirected to the proper bibcode-ID some time after the latter comes into existence.)

      Correction: for arXiv papers with 5 digits after the dot, the dot isn’t in this URL, but it is if there are less than 5 digits after the dot. (This is due to keeping the bibcode at 19 characters.)

      • Due to typos, ignore my previous comment in favour of this:

        I wrote:

        As long as the paper doesn’t have bibliographic data at ADS, it gets assigned another identifier containing the arXiv ID: <YYYY>arXiv<YYMMnnnnnI>, e.g. 2019arXiv190513189P. <YYMMnnnnnI> is the arXiv identifier, but without the dot, and <I> is the first letter of the last name of the first author. This is the permanent bibcode at ADS as long as (ADS thinks that) the paper is arXiv-only. (I believe that these always continue to work, but get redirected to the proper bibcode-ID some time after the latter comes into existence.)

        Correction: for arXiv papers with 5 digits after the dot, the dot isn’t in this URL, but it is if there are less than 5 digits after the dot. (This is due to keeping the bibcode at 19 characters.)

  6. I don’t think Perlmutter has worked in Particle physics (even though that seems to be a lore). Many people who started and graduated in Particle physics switched to astrophysics early on: such as Joel Primack. Others who worked in (theoretical) particle physics, but also work on astrophysics are Glennys Farrar and Lisa Randall (recently).
    Of course there are zillion particle physicists who have worked on models for dark matter and dark energy
    After SSC got cancelled many (astro)-particle physicists switched to LIGO (including its first director and 2017 nobel Laureate Barry Barish). Many (experimental) particle physicists have played leadership roles in some of the most famous astrophysics experiments such as SDSS, DES, DESI, LSST various CMB experiments etc.

  7. Not much if anything has changed at ADS with respect to the OJA during the last week. The two papers from 2020 still have no ADS entries. Number 10 from 2019 does, but the standard arXiv link at ADS still redirects to the second form of the arXiv link (usually for papers only on arXiv) and not to the link with the normal ADS bibcode.

    • telescoper Says:

      ADS had problems over the weekend. It probably didn’t do its regular update. It lost all citations and reference information.

      • I guess you mean Feroz et al.. Everything is as it was at https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013arXiv1306.2144F/abstract but not at the normal bibcode URL. (Also, as I noted before, the main page says 438 citations but the citation page lists 437. OK, with so many one shouldn’t be complaining, but of course the two counts should be the same.)

      • telescoper Says:

        No, I meant that there was an warning message up at the weekend saying they had problems with citation data, etc.

      • Phillip Helbig Says:

        Progress, of a sort. There are now 3 papers in a strange status. First, there is Vol. 2 ID 10, for which the style-1 ADS arXiv link at arXiv still redirects to the style-2 ADS arXiv link at ADS. However, there is a proper bibcode for this paper. Then there is a similar situation with my paper, Vol. 3 ID 1, which now has a bibcode but the wrong one; it should be “3E” (“E” for “electronic”), rather than 3; all the others with bibcodes have “E”. Vol. 3 ID 2 also has the style-1 ADS arXiv link redirecting to the style-2 ADS arXiv link, but there is no proper bibcode URL (with or without an “E”).

        The style-1 arXiv links are what link to ADS from arXiv. They are generated automatically for all arXiv papers and are never updated at ADS. The style-2 arXiv links are the “permanent” URLs at ADS for arXiv-only papers. (They always worked, but searches always turn up the bibcode URLs, which reference a particular journal, if they exist.)

        I suggest talking to ADS and getting things corrected and unified bibcodes set up as soon as possible. Some journals still have classical references with no links. Otherwise, one might write down a quick reference when hearing a talk but probably not a URL. If the ADS bibcodes all follow the same scheme (and they are otherwise rather picky), then it is easy to generate them automatically from traditional references.

        I can also contact ADS (they know who I am, since I often point out mistakes to them (usually not in my own papers)) but that might be contraproductive if you contact them as well. On the other hand, it might be good since then they will realize that more people are noticing the inconsistency.

      • Phillip Helbig Says:

        The citations are still not aggregated for Vol. 2 id 10. I now realize why, when they were, there was a difference of 1 between what the main ADS link for the paper showed and what the citations link for the paper showed: one citation is to the OJA version, the others to the arXiv version. (It’s still a bug, though.)

      • telescoper Says:

        It’s very frustrating, but I think they’ll fix it in the end. Possibly.

  8. When looking at citations for a particular author, it appear that the citation histogram at ADS has as the x axis the year of the cited paper, while Google Scholar Citations has as the x axis the year of the citing paper. Does anyone know how to get the other type of histogram at each site?

    Google Scholar Citations seems, in general, to find more citations, but not all of them are correct. Also, it seems to be impossible to get automatic changes corrected (even if one selects the option to confirm suggested changes). Does anyone know how to talk to a human at Google Scholar Citations? ADS, on the other hand, is not quite as quick and generally has fewer, but they are usually all correct, and any mistakes are dealt with quickly and professionally by the friendly staff.

    • telescoper Says:

      My citation numbers are highest on Google Scholar, so it’s obviously the most reliable source.

      • P. Coles is not an uncommon name. 🙂

        You have to hand it to Max Tegmark (né Shapiro (yes, the polynomial guy)) adopting his mother’s maiden name on becoming a cosmologist. Previously the only Shapiros in Sweden, on arriving in California he was shocked to find so many Shapiros in astronomy. I believe that his mother’s family are the only Tegmarks in the world.

        I’m reading Why quark rhymes with pork by N. David Mermin (recommended, though he hasn’t (yet?) converted me to Qbism). He quotes John Bell (yes, that John Bell, who also translated Landau and Lifschitz) comparing quantum mechanics to bicycles, but couldn’t track down the quote with Google. 🙂 (It seems to be possible now, with the advent of Google Books.)

      • telescoper Says:

        Most of Shakespeare’s plays weren’t written by Shakespeare but by someone else who had the same name.

      • There have been many claims that someone other than “the Stratford man” wrote the famous plays. Francis Bacon is one such candidate. More than forty years ago, I read an essay by Isaac Asimov (some of my all-time favourite reading) where he uses an astronomical argument to argue against Bacon: Shakespeare has Caesar say “I am as constant as the northern star”, but Asimov argues that Bacon, as a scientist, would have known of the precession of the equinoxes and hence not used such a metaphor. Also, there was no bright star near the pole in Caesar’s time. (Interestingly, the current pole star, Polaris (duh!), is not constant because it is (a Cepheid) variable.)

      • Isaac Asimov was born a bit more than 100 years ago. While we’re on the subject of bibliometry, here is his chart:

        Note: those are not citations, but books written.

  9. It now seems that all OJA papers have proper ADS entries and citations include those to the arXiv version and the OJA version.

    http://www.multivax.de:8000/oja/

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: