ArXiv Research Output Trends 2006 - Stats Visualization

  • Thread starter Thread starter marcus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Arxiv Stats
marcus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
24,753
Reaction score
794
Physics news on Phys.org
Thanks for the prompt, arivero.

==quote arXiv==
High Energy Physics - Theory ('06)
High Energy Physics - Theory ('07)

available title/author lists of hep-th papers, + cross-listings to hep-th, received during given months (each '|' represents 10 titles):

* 0601 (Jan '06) |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 236 + 108
* 0602 (Feb '06) |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||! 296 + 101
* 0603 (Mar '06) ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||! 256 + 130
* 0604 (Apr '06) ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 219 + 131
* 0605 (May '06) |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 296 + 147
* 0606 (Jun '06) ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 287 + 127
* 0607 (Jul '06) ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||! 251 + 117
* 0608 (Aug '06) |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||! 229 + 110
* 0609 (Sep '06) ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||! 226 + 119
* 0610 (Oct '06) ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||! 336 + 132
* 0611 (Nov '06) |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||! 354 + 142
* 0612 (Dec '06) ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||! 309 + 137

'06 Total: 3295 + 1501

* 0701 (Jan '07) |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||! 294 + 121
* 0702 (Feb '07) ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 229 + 104
* 0703 (Mar '07) ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||! 290 + 115
* 0704 (Apr '07) ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 245 + 109
* 0705 (May '07) |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 333 + 147
* 0706 (Jun '07) ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 302 + 128
* 0707 (Jul '07) |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 259 + 142
* 0708 (Aug '07) ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||| 257 + 95

'07 Total: 2209 + 961

==endquote==
the first 8 months of 2006 showed 2070 + 971 (submissions + crosslistings)
the first 8 months of 2007 showed 2209 + 961

So the crosslistings to hep-th from other departments were about the same (971, 961) but the direct posting to hep-th showed a 10 percent rise! (2070, 2209)

some sample years:
2002--- 3334 + 1339
2005--- 3239 + 1438
2006--- 3295 + 1501
(2007--- 3600+ ? rough estimate)

Hep-th contains a lot else besides string, so I do not know if this 10 percent recovery will be reflected in string submissions as well. I have made a rough estimate for hep-th as a whole assuming the 10 percent rise you pointed out to me.

As a final step maybe one should translate preprint submissions into an expectation of how much peer-review publication there will be. Lately I have been watching the Harvard abstracts list which just tallies the papers actually published.
 
Last edited:
It appears to me that there is a relaxation by the "old guards", due to contributing evidences that other explanations might be valid which encourages people to dig out and update their papers from the bottom of their file drawers.
You only need to make the comparison with what is now accepted on TV shows, advertising, etc., that were taboo to discuss only a few short years ago.
(eg. adult diappers/inconsistencies, erectile difficulties)
jal
 
jal said:
It appears to me that there is a relaxation by the "old guards",... comparison with what is now accepted on TV shows,...
(eg. adult diapers..., erectile difficulties)

preprints in hep-th have been flat or slightly down for 2002-2006 and now seem to be climbing again---you attribute this to declining standards of what is interesting or important enough to make public. And compare this with big diaper access to network TV.
outrageous:biggrin:
 
Last edited:
I seem to notice a buildup of papers like this: Detecting single gravitons with quantum sensing. (OK, old one.) Toward graviton detection via photon-graviton quantum state conversion Is this akin to “we’re soon gonna put string theory to the test”, or are these legit? Mind, I’m not expecting anyone to read the papers and explain them to me, but if one of you educated people already have an opinion I’d like to hear it. If not please ignore me. EDIT: I strongly suspect it’s bunk but...
I'm trying to understand the relationship between the Higgs mechanism and the concept of inertia. The Higgs field gives fundamental particles their rest mass, but it doesn't seem to directly explain why a massive object resists acceleration (inertia). My question is: How does the Standard Model account for inertia? Is it simply taken as a given property of mass, or is there a deeper connection to the vacuum structure? Furthermore, how does the Higgs mechanism relate to broader concepts like...

Similar threads

Back
Top