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

ArXiv declares independence from Cornell

science.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 300 posts

Re: ArXiv declares independence from Cornell

#31

Post by jltsiren »

davnicwil wrote: post #19

Very unrelated to the article, but I think 'arXiv' as a brand is bad, and really detrimental to what the institution aims to accomplish. That is, it's not readily parseable, it really gives an insider term vibe - like this isn't for you if you don't already know what it means or how you should read or say it. It sort of reminds me of the overuse of latin and latinate terms generally in the old professions and, well,…

It's a classic story of someone having to pick a name quickly, which then gets established long before anyone who cares about branding is aware of its existence.

The original service didn't even have a name, only a description, and it was amusingly hosted at xxx.lanl.gov. But LANL wasn't really interested in it, and the founder eventually left for Cornell. At that point, the service needed a domain name, but archive.org was already taken.

And besides, the name has Ancient Greek influences. A similar Latinate term might be something like "archive".

Re: ArXiv declares independence from Cornell

#32

Post by OutOfHere »

exe34 wrote: post #27
OutOfHere wrote: post #26

With 300K for the CEO, its enshittification will commence imminently. It will now serve to maximize revenue. Just wait and watch while they issue a premium membership, payment requirements for authors, and other revenue generators to please their investors.

they'll just turn into a shitty journal at this point, they just need to introduce peer review and they can start competing with the real journals on price point. another will need to rise to take its place.

> they'll just turn into a shitty journal at this point

To this end, they added an endorsement requirement this year: https://blog.arxiv.org/2026/01/21/attention-authors-updated-...

Re: ArXiv declares independence from Cornell

#33

Post by aragilar »

davnicwil wrote: post #22
john-titor wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder what makes you feel that. I've been publishing preprints close to a decade on arxiv now and never had any particular feelings about it. To me it's just a way to get out your work fast, so that there is already a trace of it on the Internets - nothing more and nothing less. > That is, it's not readily parseable, it really gives an insider term vibe... Isn't that normal with highly specialized research fields?…

It's an opinion, and you feeling no particular way about it is equally valid. But I did justify and maybe to reword slightly, surely if one of the main drivers is opening up research, the brand name should be something that's less obscure and more accessible / understandable as to what it is on first sight? Maybe arXiv evoking the word 'archive' with an ancient Greek twist does that for some, but it's clearly a bit c…

No, it's to be a pre-print server. If someone doesn't know what that means, then they shouldn't be using arXiv.

Re: ArXiv declares independence from Cornell

#34

Post by aragilar »

koakuma-chan wrote: post #25
adamnemecek wrote: post #2

Good call, ArXiv seems like one of the most important institutions out there right now.

it just hosts pdfs, no?

It does do a fair amount of filtering of submissions, and it's a long term archive (e.g. for the next 100+ years). I suspect both (but with the former dominating) are the issue.

Re: ArXiv declares independence from Cornell

#36

Post by freehorse »

p-e-w wrote: post #10
adamnemecek wrote: post #2

Good call, ArXiv seems like one of the most important institutions out there right now.

It’s so important, in fact, that there should be more than one such institution. People keep falling into the same trap. They love monopolies, then are shocked when those monopolies jerk them around.

It is just a preprint repository. It is pretty open (the stories where a preprint was rejected or delayed unreasonably are extremely rare). It offers the basic services for a math/compsci/physics themed preprint repository.

I don't see much of a monopoly, nor any "moat" apart from it being recognised. You can already post preprints on a personal website or on github, and there are "alternatives" such as researchgate that can also host preprints, or zenodo. There are also some lesser known alternatives even. I do not see anything special in hosting preprints online apart from the convenience of being able to have a centralised place to place them and search for them (which you call "monopoly"). If anything, the recognisability and centrality of arxiv helped a lot the old, darker days to establish open access to papers. There was a time when many journals would not let you publish a preprint, or have all kinds of weird rules when you can and when you can't. Probably still to some degree.

Re: ArXiv declares independence from Cornell

#37

Post by auggierose »

mastermage wrote: post #29
auggierose wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am using Zenodo for a while now instead. It is more user friendly, as well.

Zenodo is more for IT Papers and also datasets isn't it?

It can host large datasets as well, yes. It is hosted by CERN, so it is not specifically IT in any way. It also allows you to restrict access to the files of your submission. It has no requirements to submit your LaTeX sources, any PDF will be fine. There are also no restrictions on who can publish. You'll get a DOI, of course.

Everything published on arXiv could also be published on Zenodo, but not the other way around.

Re: ArXiv declares independence from Cornell

#38

Post by freehorse »

koakuma-chan wrote: post #25
adamnemecek wrote: post #2

Good call, ArXiv seems like one of the most important institutions out there right now.

it just hosts pdfs, no?

Well, technically, it can also compile your tex file if you upload the tex file instead of the pdf directly, which helps a lot in standardizing the stylistic structure between preprints. Most other repositories are wild west and inconsistent. I really appreciate the similarity in style applied to most preprints there. Moreover, this means you can also download not just the pdf, but the source tex file to, which can be very useful.

Re: ArXiv declares independence from Cornell

#39

Post by Garlef »

Maybe they should implement a graph based trust system:

You need your favourite academic gatekeeper (= thesis advisor) to vouch for you in order to be allowed to upload.

Then AI slop gets flagged and the shame spreads through the graph. And flaggings need to have evidence attached that can again be flagged.

Re: ArXiv declares independence from Cornell

#40

Post by frankling_ »

The recent announcement to reject review articles and position papers already smelled like a shift towards a more "opinionated" stance, and this move smells worse.

The vacuum that arXiv originally filled was one of a glorified PDF hosting service with just enough of a reputation to allow some preprints to be cited in a formally published paper, and with just enough moderation to not devolve into spam and chaos. It has also been instrumental in pushing publishers towards open access (i.e., to finally give up).

Unfortunately, over the years, arXiv has become something like a "venue" in its own right, particularly in ML, with some decently cited papers never formally published and "preprints" being cited left and right. Consider the impression you get when seeing a reference to an arXiv preprint vs. a link to an author's institutional website.

In my view, arXiv fulfills its function better the less power it has as an institution, and I thus have exactly zero trust that the split from Cornell is driven by that function. We've seen the kind of appeasement prose from their statement and FAQ [1] countless times before, and it's now time for the usual routine of snapshotting the site to watch the inevitable amendments to the mission statement.

"What positive changes should users expect to see?" - I guess the negative ones we'll have to see for ourselves.

[1] https://tech.cornell.edu/arxiv/

Post reply on HN