A while back, Aram commented on how he had trouble trying to get arXiv links into a paper he had written (read the further comments for a comment indicating that it was not the policy of the journal to do this.)
Which reminded me: I believe I’ve submitted papers with arXiv references to Physical Review A, but looking back over the papers I don’t see any such references unless the paper was never published. Does anyone know Physical Review’s policy on this? A quick scan of the guidelines didn’t yield anything. Shouldn’t Physical Review be allowing these links? Sure if I want to be careful about a paper I’ll check out the published version, but many times, having the preprint around is extremely useful.
Which reminds me even further: am I the only one who finds it extremely annoying that references in Physical Review don’t include the titles of the papers? (Unless, of course I’m writing a PRL, in which the silly four page limit makes me wish I could use doi’s for references alone.)
O brave new quantum world!
onymous your field has reached the post-journal utopia allready, then! I hadn’t thought of this but I do not examples where the arxiv version is more up to date, even in quantum computing.
am I the only one who finds it extremely annoying that references in Physical Review don’t include the titles of the papers?
I guess if the arXiv link is in there then it doesn’t really bother me. In fact, even if the arXiv link is taken out, I can just do a quick search by last name on the arXiv and can usually find a paper pretty quickly.
The arXiv also serves another important purpose, by the way. For those of us working at smaller institutions (or who simply think subscriptions to Physical Review border on extortion), it’s the most economical way to read papers. I can get the actual paper copies through interlibrary loan, but it takes a week sometimes so I only do it if I absolutely have to. These days most people have their most up-to-date version (i.e. published) on the arXiv.
Sure if I want to be careful about a paper I’ll check out the published version
Really? The arxiv version is often more recently updated, at least in my field.
It’s a tradeoff: sometimes the arxiv version is the one the authors want, but afaik the rule is that you can only post a version before it’s received “peer review” and editing services at the real journal.
For example, the Clerk et al amplification/noise review recently published in Rev Mod Phys is twice as long on the arxiv (web?).
No, you’re not the only one annoyed by the fact that paper titles aren’t included. Often you can tell from the title alone whether you want to read a given paper; leaving out the titles means more time spent following references.
I don’t know of any mathematics journals that omit titles, so as a mathematician I find this custom even more annoying because I’m not used to it. Whenever I read a physics paper that does what PRL does I find myself saying things like “those damn physicists!”
It never occurred to me that you could *ask* them to put the arXiv links back into the references. In fact, it never occurred to me that you could ask them to alter any of their standard practices until people started blogging about it.
Phys Rev will let you include arxiv references if there isn’t a published version.
I get annoyed being the referee on a paper where the authors decide to reference arxiv papers that have been published in PRL for months or years.
This annoys the crap out of me. I’m seriously considering only referencing the arXiv versions of papers in protest. If the journals are so intent on pushing the published versions of papers then they can go to the effort of digging up the references themselves.
Lately I’ve been really getting annoyed with this whole journal system – the only reason I can see that we need it is as a conduit to peer review and that can be easily handled in so many other ways.