Library-managed 'arXiv' spreads scientific advances rapidly and worldwide
ezramagazine.cornell.edu
Library-managed 'arXiv' spreads scientific advances rapidly and worldwide
1–10 of 141 posts
Re: Library-managed 'arXiv' spreads scientific advances rapidly and worldwide
#2But I bet not faster than Sci-Hub... har har har. :D
Re: Library-managed 'arXiv' spreads scientific advances rapidly and worldwide
#3But I bet not faster than Sci-Hub... har har har. :D
Significantly faster than sci-hub. Sci-hub is, afik, based on published work. This is preprints, so well in advance of that.
Re: Library-managed 'arXiv' spreads scientific advances rapidly and worldwide
#4ArXiv is incredibly useful for research, but I think people also use it for a sort of "I posted it to arXiv first, therefore I solved it first" kind of thing, which imo can be misleading at times, if not everyone follows that. Also there is the eprint.iacr.org which seems to do the same thing, except for cryptography (or is it cryptology?), so I'm not sure if every important preprint in that topic gets to arXiv.
Re: Library-managed 'arXiv' spreads scientific advances rapidly and worldwide
#5But I bet not faster than Sci-Hub... har har har. :D
Significantly faster than sci-hub. Sci-hub is, afik, based on published work. This is preprints, so well in advance of that.
Well, however, we can argue here that a pre-print is not of the same quality as a published work. Not that published works cannot have errors (and be retracted), but at least they have passed a first-level scrutiny of an editorial board.
Re: Library-managed 'arXiv' spreads scientific advances rapidly and worldwide
#6Needs a [2012]
Re: Library-managed 'arXiv' spreads scientific advances rapidly and worldwide
#7Earlier quoted context omitted.
Significantly faster than sci-hub. Sci-hub is, afik, based on published work. This is preprints, so well in advance of that.
Well, however, we can argue here that a pre-print is not of the same quality as a published work. Not that published works cannot have errors (and be retracted), but at least they have passed a first-level scrutiny of an editorial board.
Yes, but passing through the editorial board takes time. In some fields research moves extremely fast and by the time papers is properly published it's already obsolete.
Re: Library-managed 'arXiv' spreads scientific advances rapidly and worldwide
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
Significantly faster than sci-hub. Sci-hub is, afik, based on published work. This is preprints, so well in advance of that.
Well, however, we can argue here that a pre-print is not of the same quality as a published work. Not that published works cannot have errors (and be retracted), but at least they have passed a first-level scrutiny of an editorial board.
It is pretty controversial. The value of peer review has never really been demonstrated and despite peer review, the median scientific paper is wrong.
Re: Library-managed 'arXiv' spreads scientific advances rapidly and worldwide
#9This article misses one of the biggest value-adds of arXiv, at least in my field (Statistics): since almost everyone posts to arXiv, you can almost always find a free version of a published and potentially pay-walled paper. In the past, publishing in a peer-reviewed journal would (1) improve the paper through peer review, (2) signal the quality of the paper based on the prestige of the journal, and (3) distribute the paper. With arXiv, publishing now only does (1) and (2).
Re: Library-managed 'arXiv' spreads scientific advances rapidly and worldwide
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well, however, we can argue here that a pre-print is not of the same quality as a published work. Not that published works cannot have errors (and be retracted), but at least they have passed a first-level scrutiny of an editorial board.
It is pretty controversial. The value of peer review has never really been demonstrated and despite peer review, the median scientific paper is wrong.
>the median scientific paper is wrong.
Are you being literal about that or is that just a figure of speech?
Could you please provide a source for those claims, if true?