11–20 of 107 posts
I'm always grateful to arXiv. It allows non-scientists like me to access high-quality papers anytime. Thank you, always
It is also valuable for scientists as it is often a 'directors cut' version of the paper. Journal submissions are heavy edited and shortened to fit into the page limits.
ArXiv is a good complement to the modern peer review, IMO. As long as someone "vouches" for you, and you adhere to its minimal standards, you're able to post a paper. Other readers can decide whether the paper is worth their attention, and whether the presented ideas or results are valuable. It's also good that it doesn't gatekeep with the paywalls that you can pretty much only afford by affiliating yourself with a t…
- Organise peer feedback - Publish the work - Recognise good work, helping with both discovery and credit
That latter part especially is what allows publishers to charge the ridiculous markup that they do.
But with "modern" technology, feedback and publishing really doesn't require all that infrastructure - email and arXiv can easily be used to self-organise that. So we built a system of recognition that does not block publication, and can be used as a layer on top of arXiv and any other venue, allowing peers to vouch ("endorse") for a work.
I had even proposed and implemented an integration for arXiv Labs that got accepted, but then never merged. I should follow up on that...
ArXiv is a good complement to the modern peer review, IMO. As long as someone "vouches" for you, and you adhere to its minimal standards, you're able to post a paper. Other readers can decide whether the paper is worth their attention, and whether the presented ideas or results are valuable. It's also good that it doesn't gatekeep with the paywalls that you can pretty much only afford by affiliating yourself with a t…
I volunteered for a project [1] with roughly this philosophy. Traditional publishing currently serves three purposes: - Organise peer feedback - Publish the work - Recognise good work, helping with both discovery and credit That latter part especially is what allows publishers to charge the ridiculous markup that they do. But with "modern" technology, feedback and publishing really doesn't require all that infrastruc…
You definitely should - looks like what I roughly had in mind.
Thanks for sharing!
ArXiv is a good complement to the modern peer review, IMO. As long as someone "vouches" for you, and you adhere to its minimal standards, you're able to post a paper. Other readers can decide whether the paper is worth their attention, and whether the presented ideas or results are valuable. It's also good that it doesn't gatekeep with the paywalls that you can pretty much only afford by affiliating yourself with a t…
You say it as if replication crisis doesn't exist and publish or perish is not a thing.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That would be a trap. It's healthier for a non-profit to have many small funders than a few large ones.
exactly, the only reason Mozilla exists today is as a legal shield against an anti-browser monopoly suit against Google. that's the product they sell, and Google is paying hundreds of millions per year for this valuable service
If Google just wanted them to exist and didn't care about profiting off of the search traffic they wouldn't partner with Mozilla.
That worries me a bit. ArXiv was and is great and so useful to humanity, giving access to otherwise closed knowledge, hold by publishers cartel, that I would not like to see it is turning into a "non-profit" of OpenAI kind...
the heel turn to unlimited for profit was only possible because of their unique structure and the fact they were already selling commercial products. arxiv is not selling anything so theres no financial incentive to take over.
I'm always grateful to arXiv. It allows non-scientists like me to access high-quality papers anytime. Thank you, always
It is also valuable for scientists as it is often a 'directors cut' version of the paper. Journal submissions are heavy edited and shortened to fit into the page limits.
By the way, one of my favorite pastimes is to download the latex source for papers on arxiv and read all the commented-out stuff.
% we should make sure this theorem is actually true
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It is also valuable for scientists as it is often a 'directors cut' version of the paper. Journal submissions are heavy edited and shortened to fit into the page limits.
I don't know which field you're talking about, but in general, math and cs journals do not have page limits. By the way, one of my favorite pastimes is to download the latex source for papers on arxiv and read all the commented-out stuff. % we should make sure this theorem is actually true
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know which field you're talking about, but in general, math and cs journals do not have page limits. By the way, one of my favorite pastimes is to download the latex source for papers on arxiv and read all the commented-out stuff. % we should make sure this theorem is actually true
cryptography, for example, which is essentially math + cs together