Following the new INSPIRE release and community feedback, we are pleased to announce the first of a series of improvements:
Search results display
The display of search results is improved, making it easier to read through them.
Results per page
Users are now able to select the number of results per page: 25, 50, 100 or 250. This option is available at the bottom of the search results next to the number of pages.
Improved author search
Following user reports on specific author searches, the search results have been improved in the “Authors” tab.
The way files and figures are handled and displayed has been improved, a reported bug in the citation summary has been fixed and all redirect links from the old INSPIRE have been corrected.
The High-Energy Physics community’s feedback has always been part of shaping and improving INSPIRE. Stay tuned for upcoming features here. For feature requests, please fill in your feedback here. For any other request, you can contact us at <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
A year after releasing the INSPIRE beta version, we are delighted to announce the official release of the new, upgraded and more featureful INSPIRE. Built on top of a modern and reliable software architecture, the new INSPIRE aims at bringing the best out of the existing features while introducing new ones. Its modern, scalable and robust framework provides a solid foundation for fast and responsive services, intuitive search and comprehensive author profiles.
Intuitive search, easy filtering, interactive citation summary: Take a quick tour of our new features by clicking on ‘Take the tour’ under the Help menu.
Citation counts may differ between the old and the new INSPIRE platforms. Learn more here.
Old INSPIRE end-of-life
The old interface will remain accessible for a limited time at https://old.inspirehep.net/ and will be switched off by June 2020. We are actively looking for community feedback to make sure the important features are implemented in the new version. For feature requests, please contact us via the form.
API and tools on INSPIRE
If you have been using the API, we’d like to hear from you! For the time being, you can still use the API by pointing explicitly to https://old.inspirehep.net/. At the same time, we are working on a new public JSON API and we are currently investigating the community needs: the information and features you would like to see in the new API, the applications you have in mind, and how these could be integrated with INSPIRE. Contact us at <email@example.com>.
During this transition period, for feature requests, please fill in your feedback here. For any other request, you can contact us at <firstname.lastname@example.org>.
Redesigned to match the new INSPIRE style, this database gathers thousands of HEP conferences taking place around the globe. It enables users to refine conference search results by subject and date, but it also gives clear access to proceedings and contributions that might be linked to a particular conference. Additionally, from now on, when one submits a conference, it will be published immediately on INSPIRE.
So, let’s see how all of this looks like in more detail!
You can start searching for conferences by selecting the option via our dropdown menu straight from the homepage:
Available Search Filters: Date and Subject
Users are able to narrow down their conference search by date and subject.
As per default, the featured conferences will be the upcoming ones, so the respective button will be in blue. However, users can change this by selecting a start and, eventually, an end date from the calendar or typing a date directly in the bar, in which case, the upcoming conferences button will be switched off automatically.
Let’s perform a search to see this in practice!
For now, we’ll only select a date, randomly:
Date selected, we hit “search”:
The results will always be ordered by most recent. Since we have too many, let’s now narrow them down by selecting a subject or few:
Do note that subjects filter each other out. So, the more you select, the less results you’ll see, as the search will return only those conferences that cover all the subjects you selected.
Now, if we add “ichep” as our keyword, all other things remaining the same:
Narrowing down by subjects:
Conference Record Overview
Straight from the search results page, you’ll be able to see an overview of a conference record.
For example, in the below screenshot, we can see the conference name, date, venue, website, subjects covered during the event (keywords), as well as contributions and proceedings linked to the conference:
Once you’ve clicked on a conference record, you will also be able to view which series it belongs to and its main contacts:
Plus, you will see the entire list of contributions to the conference, which you can further narrow down papers by subject and collaboration, and sort by most recent or cited.
Conference Submission Form
If you would like to submit a new conference to INSPIRE, you can do so by clicking on ‘Submit’ on the top right of the page:
In addition to being a valuable source of high-energy physics content, INSPIRE aims to build and foster a community of authors and users who will benefit from our website in more ways than one.
Step by step, we are moving towards a more user-friendly interface that will be more powerful, with a slew of new features, so both authors and other visitors can make the most of INSPIRE.
To that end, we’ve not only implemented an improved algorithm to calculate citations even more reliably, but also added additional citation information to author profile pages, which can be customized and filtered to suit specific criteria. All of these are now available on INSPIRE beta, when one consults an author page.
Now, let’s see each new feature in more detail!
Citations per year
From now on, users will be able to view per-year citation graphs on author pages in an interactive way, as they hover over years to see how many citations an author had at a particular time.
Citation Summary Graph
Our new interactive citation summary graph has been designed to facilitate paper browsing by allowing users to narrow down the options by selecting a number of filters for that purpose.
As you can see, this graph shows how many citeable and published papers an author produced.
In case you wonder, “citeable” are the papers have metadata that allow us to reliably track their citations. Published papers are believed to have undergone rigorous peer review.
By clicking on a bar, search results are automatically updated to show papers that are part of each category:
Just below the graph, the results will be featured, with a useful filtering box on the left. This box allows further result refinement, with the option to filter by the number of authors, collaborators (co-authors), document type or collaboration. If you want to modify your search results, you will have to manually uncheck those filters you don’t want applied anymore.
Finally, you can also sort papers by most recent and most cited via a sorting dropdown menu:
We sincerely hope you’ll like the improvements we’ve made to author profile pages. Let us know what you think by sending us an email to email@example.com – any feedback is always welcome!
IN2P3 is one of the ten institutes of the French National Centre for Scientific Research (CNRS) and represents 20 laboratories in France, 1000 permanent researchers and 1500 supporting staff, as well as 600 postdocs and PhD students. IN2P3 has already participated in INSPIRE activities since 2016, through a bilateral collaboration agreement with CERN, and a formal accession as INSPIRE partner has now been signed.
For years IN2P3 has brought enthusiastic and substantial support to open science. IN2P3 librarians (“Democrite” network) have been among the very first to massively and systematically deposit publications on the French open archive HAL (Hyper Articles en Ligne). From now on, the Democrite team is directly curating publications relevant to IN2P3 on INSPIRE, and after validation, these are automatically pushed to HAL (by SWORD protocol). Thanks to the IN2P3 open science policy and promotion, the vast majority of these records in HAL already have a direct link to an open access version, and HAL will soon be able to automatically obtain, display and archive the PDF versions of these documents. Since 2016, already 10,000 records have been treated through this process, with an average of 4,000 records per year, where half of them have IN2P3 authors and the other half have at least one French author. Thus, IN2P3 voluntarily supports the whole French physics community.
The IN2P3 team of curators brings to INSPIRE its knowledge of French affiliations and direct support of requests from French authors. They participate in the author disambiguation and publication attribution effort for French authors and can manually add content relevant to IN2P3 to INSPIRE. The very high quality of metadata in INSPIRE also allows them to extract reliable and refined metrics for the Institute. In France, they maintain a network of IN2P3 researchers to promote best practices for international visibility of their works (arXiv use, ORCID, etc.) and liaise with the other CNRS and CEA institutes interested in their contributions.
This partnership shows well that direct connections between a major international scientific information system, such as INSPIRE, and national or institutional archives are increasingly possible, facilitated by the generalization of common international identifiers (affiliations, authors, etc.) and voluntary open science policies.
We have upgraded our job submission forms, and added new features that will make it smoother for users to review and edit their job postings – all of this completely free of charge!
Up until now, if users wanted to make a modification (update a deadline, description, contact email etc.), they had to send a ticket, and our curator would make the change.
In the new system, INSPIRE beta jobs, we give more freedom to users when it comes to managing their job openings. Curators still need to approve a new job posting, but once the job is displayed, the submitter can edit the job posting, and see the changes directly online. All this is now possible because we’ve enabled users to login with their ORCID to submit and modify their job posting. Anyone can send a new job to INSPIRE, as long as they have an ORCID account. You can read more about ORCID and how to create an account here.
We’ll be running INSPIRE beta jobs in parallel with our current job platform. During this time, we’d more than appreciate your feedback (email us at firstname.lastname@example.org)! By hearing from you, our users, we’ll know what to improve in order to meet your needs in the best way possible! After a few weeks of testing, the new INSPIRE beta jobs will replace the current INSPIRE jobs platform.
Note: INSPIRE beta jobs is currently under testing; therefore it contains a selection of job postings and is not updated regularly. Any updates on INSPIRE beta jobs won’t be reflected on INSPIRE.
However, if you’re interested in proceeding with job submissions on the new INSPIRE, we hope the following instructions will be useful!
How to submit a new job posting?
Once you’ve logged in with your ORCID, you’ll be able to access the job submission form that allows you to provide information about the position you’d like to post.
To do so, click on the “Submit” button in the top right corner of our homepage, and then on “Job”:
(The job submission option will be added after testing.)
At the time of submission, a job’s status will be set to “pending” by default, until our team has reviewed and approved it. Approved jobs will appear on the list of job postings.
How to update a job posting?
As described earlier, from now on, users who have created a job posting are able to modify it, and their changes will be immediately shown in INSPIRE beta jobs.
To do so, simply go to your job posting and click the “Edit” icon at the bottom left of your job posting: . From there, you’ll access the update form, where you can change any job detail you want to.
To apply changes, you need to scroll down and click the “Submit” button: . You’ll get a message that your submission was successfully submitted if all went well.
How to update a deadline?
Updating a deadline is now much simpler. On the new platform, you’ll be able to log in using your ORCID, and access the editing options directly via the job posting link you received at the time of approval.
Go to your job posting and click the “Edit” icon at the bottom left:. From there, you’ll access the update form, where you can change the deadline:
Changing the date is easily done via calendar, instead of having to follow a specific date format.
So, we get:
Once done editing, scroll down to submit via the respective button: -> and any successful submission should get the following message:
Your job posting will be instantly updated to reflect the changes you’ve made!
In our case, this would be:
How to remove a job posting?
If you, for any reason, want to remove your job posting from INSPIRE, you can do this by accessing the update form via the icon, and then simply changing the status of your job posting to “closed”:
It will immediately be removed from the job list once you’ve confirmed it by clicking on the button. You should receive the following:
If, on the other hand, you want to re-open the job, you will have to create a new job posting.
Of course, the INSPIRE team is there to help you with whatever you might need to manage your job announcements on our website. Contact us at email@example.com all your questions and feedback!
We are excited to announce INSPIRE beta, a sneak peek into the future of INSPIRE!
Built on top of a modern and reliable software architecture, INSPIRE beta aims at bringing the best out of the existing INSPIRE features while introducing new ones.
The High Energy Physics community’s feedback has always been part of shaping and improving INSPIRE; by launching INSPIRE beta to the community we enable an even closer connection, which helps us to deliver a new and better INSPIRE platform based on user needs.
That’s why INSPIRE beta is running in parallel to INSPIRE, while we work on ensuring that it will fully satisfy the needs of the HEP community. For the time being, users need to login via ORCID in order to try out INSPIRE beta, but the final platform will be available to everyone without any login required, same as the current INSPIRE platform.
You will see a powerful search, new filters (facets), and a new look-and-feel of search results and author pages.
INSPIRE beta features the familiar SPIRES syntax operators, currently the most popular way of searching in INSPIRE. According to our usage data, 95% of user searches correspond to the 10 most popular SPIRES syntax operators, as illustrated here:
This was a clear indication for us when deciding our search implementation priorities. In the future, we will review the implementation based on user feedback, but for now, the following SPIRES syntax operators are supported on INSPIRE beta:
In addition, we are investigating new ways to search for information using free text. We are currently improving the search results so that users can search by typing any combination of author names, title, dates etc. For example:
The new facets allow users to refine their search. You can search by date, author name, subject, arXiv category, experiment and document type. Additionally, following user requests, we added a new facet to filter out papers with more than 10 authors. The facet works similarly to the author count SPIRES operator (ac 1->10).
Citations are a very core function of what we do; INSPIRE aggregates content from many sources with often updated references. Currently, INSPIRE has 4 different algorithms for calculating citations, which can lead to discrepancies. In INSPIRE beta we implemented a new algorithm to calculate stable and accurate citations. So what does that mean for you? As we are still fine tuning the algorithm, you might encounter small citation differences between the two systems.
For more info on new features and known issues, please visit our help page.
The 2016 edition of the annual topcites list is still very much dominated by experiment, in particular the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012, with the ATLAS and CMS papers at the  and  positions as they have been since 2013 (joined by the ATLAS and CMS instrumentation papers [12,13]). Indeed, they have now cracked the top ten of the all time list, where they are the only papers from the 2010s and, together with the 2006 PYTHIA  and 2002 GEANT4  papers, the only papers from this century. The ATLAS and CMS collaborations produced a joint paper in 2015 on the Higgs boson mass and it makes its first appearance in the Top Forty this year . The papers from the 1990s on the AdS/CFT correspondence [5,14,20] continue to be strongly represented. A breakthrough paper from 2006 by Ryu and Takayanagi , which connects entanglement entropy and Bekenstein-Hawking entropy, has made its first appearance in the Top Forty list as interest grows in the connection between quantum information concepts and quantum gravity. Aside from these papers, all of the theoretical papers in the top twenty are resource papers centered around LHC-relevant simulations [4,6,7,8,9,16,19]. The 21st century simulation codes Sherpa and POWHEG make their first appearance on the Top Forty list this year [35,38] following a long, steady climb in their annual citation rates [2008 paper, 2004 paper]. Away from the LHC-zone, observational cosmology rules the top twenty, with familiar favorites [3,10,15,17,18] and one very important newcomer , to which we now turn.
The gravitational wave discovery paper  by the LIGO Scientific and Virgo collaborations appeared simultaneously in Physical Review Letters and on arXiv.org in February. By April it had 200 citations and by July 500 citations. In late December Science Magazine named this discovery the Breakthrough of the Year for 2016. So far this seems to have exerted little influence on the rest of the topcite list (though one can detect an uptick in citations of Einstein’s original GR paper and his 1937 paper on gravitational waves). It will be interesting to see what happens in 2017.
The other big news of 2016 was the possible di-photon (or gamma-gamma) excess reported in December of 2015 by ATLAS  and CMS  in papers that were, unprecedentedly for the Top Forty list, neither arXiv eprints nor journal articles. As a potential signal for New Physics, this precipitated an intense period of research. The observations generated more than 400 theory papers citing the ATLAS and CMS reports. This collection of theory papers acquired a Hirsh index of 92, that is 92 of these citing papers themselves garnered at least 92 citations. Publishing these theory papers was a matter of controversy. JHEP declined for some time to publish any theory paper explaining the resonance; Physical Review Letters chose four to illustrate the ferment in the particle theory community. Finally at the ICHEP conference in Chicago in August it was announced that the signal disappeared when studied in the larger LHC data set accumulated in 2016. In the still-relevant words of Maurice Goldhaber, “not all candidates get elected”.
The remainder of the list includes familiar papers from previous Top Forty lists. On the theory side are more LHC-relevant simulation papers [22,23,25,28,30,31], Hawking radiation , inflation [26,34], large extra dimensions  and neutrino mixing . The list is rounded out by the first resullts from LUX on dark matter  (the final results from LUX appeared in August, too late for this edition) and the update of cosmological parameters from the full WMAP data set .
Traditionally DOIs (Digital Object Identifiers) have been associated with published papers in the digital era, but papers are not the only research objects that physicists may want to search, use, and cite. We talked with Jim Simone of Fermilab about his efforts to get DOIs assigned to MILC collaboration datasets and to get records of them uploaded to INSPIRE.
How is Jim involved with the MILC collaboration?
Jim is a member of FERMILAB-LATTICE collaboration, which works closely with MILC on scientific projects involving matrix elements and flavor physics. MILC generates data sets consisting of lattice gauge configuration files, which the collaboration has made openly available for others to use, as is increasingly becoming required for federally funded research in the U.S.
What is the MILC collaboration’s connection to the International Lattice Data Grid (ILDG)?
Jim was an early organizer of the ILDG, which is intended as a data grid to enable collaborations to share gauge configurations. The ILDG metadata catalog had its limitations; it only held limited kinds of metadata, sometimes making it difficult for people to find what they were looking for. People involved with the project have been trying to fill in the gaps, including the biggest problem: connecting scientific papers produced by the data to the datasets.
Rather than reinventing the wheel, ILDG is considering to use INSPIRE as a catalog to connect papers with datasets, making the data usable and findable by all physicists, including HEP and nuclear phenomenologists, as ILDG is currently only used by lattice scientists. In INSPIRE the datasets and associated papers can be searched starting with the papers in order to see what configurations were used to get the results, though in the upcoming version of INSPIRE, the Data collection will be made public and searching will also be possible starting with the individual datasets and from there finding what papers were produced from these configurations.
Why and how did Jim go about getting DOIs assigned to the datasets? What challenges did he face?
Jim believes DOIs, as public, persistent identifiers, are a natural mechanism to identify the datasets, which are public, first class data objects, and permanent. With DOIs, the configurations will be better integrated into the ILDG and INSPIRE.
In the case of published papers, DOIs are assigned by publishers, but this route would not work for datasets. While INSPIRE is equipped to directly issue DOIs, MILC’s direct connection to the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) made it practical for DOIs to be issued by DOE Office of Scientific and Technical Information (OSTI). In either case, DOIs are registered with the central agency DataCite.
ILDG has started a discussion on how other groups can get DOIs for their datasets. Outside the DOE, CERN also issues DOIs, and regional ILDG groups can help members get DOIs and serve as gatekeepers to keep the metadata clean and clear. DataCite can also help researchers find registration organizations.
For Jim it was a learning experience working with OSTI and interacting with their web services. As one of his main focuses was findability, Jim wanted to include lots of searchable metadata in the dataset records so to help physicists find the particular configurations they wanted. This amount of metadata was more than OSTI was used to receiving when minting DOIs, but they were able to work with Jim’s requests and he considered them a great help through the entire process
Beyond getting the DOIs assigned, another challenge was figuring out how citations should be marked up in papers, both written and digitally. With the goals of making the datasets findable and identifiable, Jim and the ILDG wanted people to be able to see the DOI in a print version of a reference list as well as click it in a digital version. In order to make the process as transparent as possible for people citing the datasets, Jim worked with us to include instructions in the metadata of the INSPIRE records and OSTI records.
For researchers unsure of how to cite datasets that do not include specific citation guidelines in their metadata, DataCite and CrossRef have developed a DOI citation formatter that can take a DOI registered by either of these services and format its citation in a variety of styles.
When going through the publication process with a paper that used MILC configurations, Jim found the referees and copy editors weren’t familiar with how the citations should appear. Most objects with a DOI are published papers that can be cited in written format using a journal reference, volume, page range, etc., so the DOI is often left out of the text of a reference list. However, following this standard would not make the datasets adequately identifiable to the human eye.
The community known as FORCE 11 (Future of Research Communication and e-Scholarship) has developed eight principles of data citation practices with equal emphasis on human readability and machine-actionability. As these recommendations become more widely endorsed in research communities and researchers become accustomed to citing datasets in their papers, the issue of human identifiable data citations will most likely be resolved.
What advice does Jim have for others looking to make their datasets more findable and citable?
Jim has two pieces of advice: get DOIs and mark up the metadata in a way that’s sensible for the community who will use the datasets. DataCite makes this simple by being explicit about its mandatory metadata requirements, while also allowing for additional recommended and optional metadata.
At INSPIRE we look forward to integrating more dataset DOIs into our records. Send your questions and comments about dataset DOIs in INSPIRE to firstname.lastname@example.org.