Comparing Published Scientific Journal Articles to Their Pre-Print Versions -- Extended Version

TL;DR

This study compares pre-print and final published versions of scientific articles, finding minimal textual differences, which questions the added value of publishers' services and impacts library subscription decisions.

Contribution

It provides empirical evidence that published articles differ little from pre-prints, challenging assumptions about publishers' added value in scholarly communication.

Findings

Minimal textual differences between pre-prints and final versions

Challenges the perceived value added by publishers

Implications for library subscription and access decisions

Abstract

Academic publishers claim that they add value to scholarly communications by coordinating reviews and contributing and enhancing text during publication. These contributions come at a considerable cost: U.S. academic libraries paid $1.7 billion for serial subscriptions in 2008 alone. Library budgets, in contrast, are flat and not able to keep pace with serial price inflation. We have investigated the publishers' value proposition by conducting a comparative study of pre-print papers from two distinct science, technology, and medicine (STM) corpora and their final published counterparts. This comparison had two working assumptions: 1) if the publishers' argument is valid, the text of a pre-print paper should vary measurably from its corresponding final published version, and 2) by applying standard similarity measures, we should be able to detect and quantify such differences. Our analysis revealed that the text contents of the scientific papers generally changed very little from their pre-print to final published versions. These findings contribute empirical indicators to discussions of the added value of commercial publishers and therefore should influence libraries' economic decisions regarding access to scholarly publications.