so cool!
alphaXiv: Open research discussion on top of arXiv
91–100 of 190 posts
Re: alphaXiv: Open research discussion on top of arXiv
#92Hey alphaxiv, you won’t let me claim some of my preprints, because there’s no match with the email address. Which there can’t be, as we’re only listing a generic first.last@org addresses in the papers. Tried the claiming process twice, nothing happened. Not all papers are on Orcid, so that doesn’t help. I think it’ll be hard growing a discussion platform, if there’s barriers of entry like that to even populate your p…
How would you propose making claiming possible without the risk of hijacking/misrepresentation?
There should be an equivalent of S/MIME for researchers if e-mail is not accessible.
Re: alphaXiv: Open research discussion on top of arXiv
#93Great platform for invigorating research discussions! But seeing only AI based (or broadly CS based) research as featured papers is a bit discouraging. Perhaps there isn't enough critical mass for other topics yet.
Re: alphaXiv: Open research discussion on top of arXiv
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Upload a new version of your paper on arxiv, this time with an email address that works.
I’ve never understood why we need emails in papers. Who sends emails to paper authors? How often do they respond? How fast do the email addresses go out of date? I lost access to my email address included in most my papers within 2 years of publication. I see little to no value to have it included in the paper.
> Who sends emails to paper authors?
I do when the paper is not easily available or the publisher charges some outrageous fee (have seen $50 for a paper in the past).
Authors typically despise the publishers and are happy to share their work to anybody interested.
Re: alphaXiv: Open research discussion on top of arXiv
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Upload a new version of your paper on arxiv, this time with an email address that works.
I’ve never understood why we need emails in papers. Who sends emails to paper authors? How often do they respond? How fast do the email addresses go out of date? I lost access to my email address included in most my papers within 2 years of publication. I see little to no value to have it included in the paper.
Who sends emails to paper authors?
I do, when I'd like to read a paper that's locked behind a paywall and not available on sci-hub. Authors of scientific papers are much like any other authors... they want to be read. The more enlightened among them understand that obscurity is a problem rather than a perk. They also tend to appreciate engagement in the form of follow-up questions (at least from people who actually read the paper.)
Obviously it's not a major concern on arxiv, but in a larger historical sense, this type of communication was a key original application of email.
Re: alphaXiv: Open research discussion on top of arXiv
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve never understood why we need emails in papers. Who sends emails to paper authors? How often do they respond? How fast do the email addresses go out of date? I lost access to my email address included in most my papers within 2 years of publication. I see little to no value to have it included in the paper.
> Who sends emails to paper authors? I do when the paper is not easily available or the publisher charges some outrageous fee (have seen $50 for a paper in the past). Authors typically despise the publishers and are happy to share their work to anybody interested.
For sure. That is why I keep the preprint PDFs on my website (along with my current email address).
Re: alphaXiv: Open research discussion on top of arXiv
#97Earlier quoted context omitted.
I’ve never understood why we need emails in papers. Who sends emails to paper authors? How often do they respond? How fast do the email addresses go out of date? I lost access to my email address included in most my papers within 2 years of publication. I see little to no value to have it included in the paper.
Who sends emails to paper authors? I do, when I'd like to read a paper that's locked behind a paywall and not available on sci-hub. Authors of scientific papers are much like any other authors... they want to be read. The more enlightened among them understand that obscurity is a problem rather than a perk. They also tend to appreciate engagement in the form of follow-up questions (at least from people who actually r…
If an author wants to be read then they will keep the preprint PDFs on their website (along with their current email address). An added benefit is that Google Scholar indexes and links directly to the PDFs instead of the publisher website.
Re: alphaXiv: Open research discussion on top of arXiv
#98Great idea. - The frontpage should directly show the list of papers, like with HN. You shouldn't have to click on "trending" first. (When you are logged in, you see a list of featured papers on the homepage, which isn't as engaging as the "trending" page. Again, compare HN: Same homepage whether you're logged in or not.) - Ranking shouldn't be based on comment activity, which ranks controversial papers, rather papers…
> rather papers should be voted on like comments. I don't think this is an inherently better approach, but maybe there should be an option for different ranking mechanisms. You could also rank by things like cite-frequency, cite-recency, "cite pagerank", etc.
It doesn't seem like citations would be good for discovery, because there must be a significant latency between when a paper is released and when citations start coming in.
Re: alphaXiv: Open research discussion on top of arXiv
#99Great idea. - The frontpage should directly show the list of papers, like with HN. You shouldn't have to click on "trending" first. (When you are logged in, you see a list of featured papers on the homepage, which isn't as engaging as the "trending" page. Again, compare HN: Same homepage whether you're logged in or not.) - Ranking shouldn't be based on comment activity, which ranks controversial papers, rather papers…
> Ranking shouldn't be based on comment activity, which ranks controversial papers
But don't we want people's attention drawn to controversial/conversation generating papers? The whole point of the platform is to drive conversation
Re: alphaXiv: Open research discussion on top of arXiv
#100> Use HTML rather then PDF.
Tenured prof here. Academics don't use HTML, despite its obvious advantages. The incentive system is deeply broken. No big-name journal or conference will accept a well-formatted HTML over their proprietary Latex/Word format. Latex to PDF converters generally suck.