Arxiv stats for 2005 are ready

  • Thread starter Thread starter marcus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Arxiv Stats
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the posting rates of preprints in various categories on arXiv, particularly focusing on high energy physics (hep), astrophysics (astro), and condensed matter physics. Participants analyze trends in these categories over time, referencing specific data and charts, and consider the implications of upcoming experimental data from the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) on research trends.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Experimental/applied

Main Points Raised

  • One participant notes that the updated statistics show that astrophysics and condensed matter have caught up to and may have surpassed high energy physics in terms of posting rates.
  • Another participant provides a specific chart for General Relativity and Quantum Cosmology (GR-QC), indicating that its growth is slower compared to other fields like condensed matter and high energy physics.
  • There is a suggestion that the experimental and observational contributions in hep and astro significantly influence their higher posting rates compared to theoretical fields like GR-QC.
  • One participant observes that the posting rate for hep-th has fluctuated, while condensed matter has shown consistent growth.
  • Another participant speculates on the potential impact of LHC data on research, suggesting it could significantly influence the case for dark matter.
  • There is a discussion about the lack of visible trends in historical data around significant discoveries, such as the top quark, and the limitations of available data for analysis.
  • Concerns are raised about funding cuts for high energy particle physics in the US, linked to expectations surrounding the LHC.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views regarding the implications of the data trends and the potential impact of the LHC. There is no consensus on the future effects of the LHC data or the funding situation for high energy physics.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference specific data points and trends without resolving the implications of these observations. The discussion includes speculation about future research directions and funding issues, which remain unresolved.

marcus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
Messages
24,752
Reaction score
795
http://arxiv.org/Stats/

they plot the average monthly posting rate for preprints
in several categories: hep, astro, mathphys, condensedmatter

the solid bar is the actual posting in that category, the blank part is crossposting from other categories

so looking at the solid blue, for hep, and the red for astro, you can see that hep used to be the leader
and now astro and condensed and mathphys have all caught up
and even seem to have surpassed hep.

I think we could see the trends in the data up thru 2004 and this mostly just confirms what people thought was happening

thanks to Alejandro (arivero) for flagging these charts a year or so ago---I am just noting that they have been updated as of today.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Gr-qc

in case anyone is interested, here is the same chart for GR-QC----that is Gen Rel and Quantum Cosmology.

http://arxiv.org/Stats/gr-qc_monthly.png

It is pretty small compared with major categories like hep and astro.

Also it is growing very slowly, compared with fastgrowing fields like condensed matter and mathphys.I think the monthly posting rate for hep or astro is around 800 and for GR-QC it is around 150. so less than 1/5

but the thing is, hep and astro have a big contribution from the EXPERIMENTAL AND OBSERVATIONAL contingent. they are not just theory, they have a lot of telescope and laboratory work to report

============================

this is a good time to gather some data on research trends. here are some links that might be handy

http://lanl.arxiv.org/find/nucl-ex,...brane+abs:+OR+M-theory+p-brane/0/1/0/2006/0/1

this is might work in a few weeks after some papers have accumulated for 2006, now it is too early.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
From the first chart, it looks like hep-th climbed and then sank, while condensed matter just kept climbing.
 
This makes sense to me, SA. A lot of very knotty issues hinge on condensed matter experiments. The LHC, IMO, will be the light at the end of the tunnel. Even weak sisters, like Brookhaven, have brought us tantalizingly close to the edge of the abyss. Just to go out on a limb, I think the LHC will make or break the case for dark matter.
 
I wonder what the effect will be of the incoming data from LHC once it turns on.

I tried to see some feature in the plots around March 95, when the top was discovered, but there is nothing too apparent. On the other hand, the amount of data and CPU available for its analysis (via the GRID) will be several orders of magnitude larger for LHC than what has been previously seen...
 
Also, it makes more sense to try to find a correlation with the first physics runs of the Tevatron, in 1988, but the plots do not go that far back.
 
It's a pity, and a disaster for physics, that the US Congress has apparently used the expectations of the LHC to slash funding for high energy particle physics in the States.
 
ahrkron said:
I wonder what the effect will be of the incoming data from LHC once it turns on.

I tried to see some feature in the plots around March 95, when the top was discovered, but there is nothing too apparent. On the other hand, the amount of data and CPU available for its analysis (via the GRID) will be several orders of magnitude larger for LHC than what has been previously seen...

Kamiokande &c confirmations of neutrino oscillations are almost unperceptible in the graph.
 

Similar threads

Graduate Arxiv stats as of December 2004
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K