Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

blog.arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 250 posts

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#51

Post by programjames »

bob1029 wrote: post #28

> The advent of large language models have made this type of content relatively easy to churn out on demand, and the majority of the review articles we receive are little more than annotated bibliographies, with no substantial discussion of open research issues. I have to agree with their justification. Since "Attention Is All You Need" (2017) I have seen maybe four papers with similar impact in the AI/ML space. The…

This is only for review/position papers, though I agree that pretty much all ML papers for the past 20 years have been slop. I also consider the big names like, "Adam", "Attention", or "Diffusion" slop, because even thought they are powerful and useful, the presentation is so horrible (for the first two) or they contain major mistakes in the justication of why they work (the last two) that they should never have gotten past review without major rewrites.

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#52

Post by unethical_ban »

currymj wrote: post #47

i would like to understand what people get, or think they get, out of putting a completely AI-generated survey paper on arXiv. Even if AI writes the paper for you, it's still kind of a pain in the ass to go through the submission process, get the LaTeX to compile on their servers, etc., there is a small cost to you. Why do this?

Presumably a sense of accomplishment to brandish with family and less informed employers.

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#54

Post by zackmorris »

I always figured if I wrote a paper, the peer review would be public scrutiny. As in, it would have revolutionary (as opposed to evolutionary) innovations that disrupt the status quo. I don't see how blocking that kind of paper from arXiv helps hacker culture in any way, so I oppose their decision.

They should solve the real problem of obtaining more funding and volunteers so that they can take on the increased volume of submissions. Especially now that AI's here and we can all be 3 times as productive for the same effort.

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#55

Post by swiftcoder »

currymj wrote: post #47

i would like to understand what people get, or think they get, out of putting a completely AI-generated survey paper on arXiv. Even if AI writes the paper for you, it's still kind of a pain in the ass to go through the submission process, get the LaTeX to compile on their servers, etc., there is a small cost to you. Why do this?

Gaming the h-index has been a thing for a long time in circles where people take note of such things. There are academics who attach their name to every paper that goes through their department (even if they contributed nothing), there are those who employ a mountain of grad students to speed run publishing junk papers... and now with LLMs, one can do it even faster!

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#56

Post by jasonjmcghee »

Sharlin wrote: post #5

So what they no longer accept is preprints (or rejects…) It’s of course a pretty big deal given that arXiv is all about preprints. And an accepted journal paper presumably cannot be submitted to arXiv anyway unless it’s an open journal.

> Is this a policy change?

> Technically, no! If you take a look at arXiv’s policies for specific content types you’ll notice that review articles and position papers are not (and have never been) listed as part of the accepted content types.

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#57

Post by losvedir »

amelius wrote: post #8

Maybe it's time for a reputation system. E.g. every author publishes a public PGP key along with their work. Not sure about the details but this is about CS, so I'm sure they will figure something out.

Maybe arXiv could keep the free preprints but offer a service on top. Humans, experts in the field, would review submissions, and arXiv would curate and publish the high quality ones, and offer access to these via a subscription or fee per paper....

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#58

Post by swiftcoder »

mottiden wrote: post #33

I understand their reasoning, but it’s terrible for the CS community not being able to access pre-prints. I hope that a solution can be found.

It doesn't apply CS papers in general - only opinion pieces and surveys of existing papers. i.e. it only bans preprints for papers that contribute nothing new.

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#59

Post by tasuki »

zackmorris wrote: post #54

I always figured if I wrote a paper, the peer review would be public scrutiny. As in, it would have revolutionary (as opposed to evolutionary) innovations that disrupt the status quo. I don't see how blocking that kind of paper from arXiv helps hacker culture in any way, so I oppose their decision. They should solve the real problem of obtaining more funding and volunteers so that they can take on the increased volum…

That paper wouldn't be blocked. Have you read the thing?

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#60

Post by jeremyjh »

Sharlin wrote: post #5

So what they no longer accept is preprints (or rejects…) It’s of course a pretty big deal given that arXiv is all about preprints. And an accepted journal paper presumably cannot be submitted to arXiv anyway unless it’s an open journal.

You can still submit research papers.
Post reply on HN