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

71–80 of 250 posts

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

#71

Post by raddan »

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…

It’s weird to say that you can be three times more efficient at taking down AI slop now that AI is here, given that the problem is exacerbated by AI in the first place. At least without AI authors were forced to actually write the slop themselves…

This does not seem like a win even if your “fight AI with AI plan works.”

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

#72

Post by nurettin »

jfengel wrote: post #42
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.

I had been kinda hoping for a web-of-trust system to replace peer review. Anyone can endorse an article. You can decide which endorsers you trust, and do some network math to find what you think is reading. With hashes and signatures and all that rot. Not as gate-keepy as journals and not as anarchic as purely open publishing. Should be cheap, too.

What prevents you from creating an island of fake endorsers?

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

#73

Post by dpkirchner »

nurettin wrote: post #72
jfengel wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had been kinda hoping for a web-of-trust system to replace peer review. Anyone can endorse an article. You can decide which endorsers you trust, and do some network math to find what you think is reading. With hashes and signatures and all that rot. Not as gate-keepy as journals and not as anarchic as purely open publishing. Should be cheap, too.

What prevents you from creating an island of fake endorsers?

Maybe getting caught causes the island to be shut out and papers automatically invalidated if there aren't sufficient real endorsers.

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

#74

Post by geysersam »

raddan wrote: post #67
jfengel wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had been kinda hoping for a web-of-trust system to replace peer review. Anyone can endorse an article. You can decide which endorsers you trust, and do some network math to find what you think is reading. With hashes and signatures and all that rot. Not as gate-keepy as journals and not as anarchic as purely open publishing. Should be cheap, too.

The problem with an endorsement scheme is citation rings, ie groups of people who artificially inflate the perceived value of some line of work by citing each other. This is a problem even now, but it is kept in check by the fact that authors do not usually have any control over who reviews their paper. Indeed, in my area, reviews are double blind, and despite claims that “you can tell who wrote this anyway” research…

But you can choose to not trust people that are part of citation rings.

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

#75

Post by xeromal »

unethical_ban wrote: post #52
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.

Yup, 100% going on a linked in profile

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

#77

Post by nradov »

jfengel wrote: post #42
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.

I had been kinda hoping for a web-of-trust system to replace peer review. Anyone can endorse an article. You can decide which endorsers you trust, and do some network math to find what you think is reading. With hashes and signatures and all that rot. Not as gate-keepy as journals and not as anarchic as purely open publishing. Should be cheap, too.

An endorsement system would have to be finer grained than a whole article. Mark specific sections that you agree or disagree with, along with comments.

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

#79

Post by uniqueuid »

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.

I got that suggestion recently talking to a colleague from a prestigious university.

Her suggestion was simple: Kick out all non-ivy league and most international researchers. Then you have a working reputation system.

Make of that what you will ...

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

#80

Post by dmoy »

geysersam wrote: post #74
raddan wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with an endorsement scheme is citation rings, ie groups of people who artificially inflate the perceived value of some line of work by citing each other. This is a problem even now, but it is kept in check by the fact that authors do not usually have any control over who reviews their paper. Indeed, in my area, reviews are double blind, and despite claims that “you can tell who wrote this anyway” research…

But you can choose to not trust people that are part of citation rings.

It is a non trivial problem to do just that.

It's related to the same problems you have with e.g. Sybil attacks: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_attack

I'm not saying it wouldn't be worthwhile to try, just that I expect there to be a lot of very difficult problems to solve there.

Post reply on HN