21–30 of 91 posts
The two sites I start my day with: hacker news and arxiv.
Do you read the /new submissions for particular topics? HN is a nice tidy list of top things, is there an equivalent for ArXiv?
The two sites I start my day with: hacker news and arxiv.
Do you read the /new submissions for particular topics? HN is a nice tidy list of top things, is there an equivalent for ArXiv?
The two sites I start my day with: hacker news and arxiv.
Why have you never submitted an article you've found on Arxiv to HN? Are you not finding anything interesting there? (Based on https://news.ycombinator.com/submitted?id=henrydark ... I guess you could use a different account?)
The arxiv moderators are like human spam filters. And as anyone who dealt with email should know, spam filters are essential for a platform to remain useful. I think the article puts undue emphasis on the few edge cases that invariably arise with any such filtering system.
And being a moderator is a thankless job indeed. The efforts of a moderator are largely focused on the absolute worst papers, and the job is therefore very different from being a referee or editor of a reasonable academic journal. So personally I would also focus elsewhere any efforts at increasing diversity in academic institutions.
From the article: > But moderators frequently intervene, delaying posting by days or weeks, reclassifying papers or even outright rejecting submissions. Definitely not my experience. I haven't posted to arXiv in a while now, but I wasn't even aware a moderation queue exists -- none of my papers were delayed, reclassified, or other... EDIT: I see the article provides a few examples, but then they also provide numbers:…
I legit don’t get how come there isn’t some government funded publication platform. No other endeavor has as much bang for buck. Arxiv needs $2.5m a year https://arxiv.org/about/reports-financials which is chump change.
I also don't understand how there can so much money to throw at startups and not one person to "adpot-a-highway" for a year.
I legit don’t get how come there isn’t some government funded publication platform. No other endeavor has as much bang for buck. Arxiv needs $2.5m a year https://arxiv.org/about/reports-financials which is chump change.
Part of the challenge is the reputation issue. Academics want to publish where there is prestige, which means there has to be a perception of the venue as good. This typically either comes from reasonable gatekeeping and high-quality peers (e.g. arXiv) or pushing metrics (e.g. Nature Publishing Group journals). Generating an attractive journal is non-trivial and few people with the appropriate knowledge and expertise…
Important to note that this is not some innate "want"; their careers depend on it. It's a means to an ends, the ends being being able to keep practicing science.
(Of course prestige-by-proxy will play a role as well, but it's not what's keeping the system in place.)
I'm in no way involved in academic research, and I don't now how it works in detail, but a question that popped into my head these days was: is there a place where people can publish papers even without any association with anything? Like, if I manage to do proper research, even without any qualifications on paper, would it still be useful? Does this make any sense?
I'm in no way involved in academic research, and I don't now how it works in detail, but a question that popped into my head these days was: is there a place where people can publish papers even without any association with anything? Like, if I manage to do proper research, even without any qualifications on paper, would it still be useful? Does this make any sense?