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

ArXiv's Next Chapter

blog.arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 107 posts

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#31

Post by jjgreen »

modeless wrote: post #29
m-hodges wrote: post #24

I always struggle to figure out what role arXiv should play in my information diet. On the one hand I support Open Access research. On the other hand, peer review is vital, and a substantial quantity of “papers” on arXiv are just blog posts in a LaTeX trench coat.

Do people browse arxiv or monitor new posts like reddit or something? I only visit when I encounter a link to it or when I search for a specific paper.

A bit too big and varied to browse, but you can get emails of all recent papers in your field(s) of interest with something like Scholars: https://app.scholars.io/newsletter I subscribe to "Functional Analysis" and get a weekly email listing 30-40 papers.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#32

Post by tim-kt »

m-hodges wrote: post #24

I always struggle to figure out what role arXiv should play in my information diet. On the one hand I support Open Access research. On the other hand, peer review is vital, and a substantial quantity of “papers” on arXiv are just blog posts in a LaTeX trench coat.

If you know the authors of your specific area of research, arXiv is a nice way to read their new papers when they are (mostly) done but the submission to a journal is not finished yet.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#33

Post by montebicyclelo »

m-hodges wrote: post #30
montebicyclelo wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, some blog posts are worth citing.

Of course some blog posts are worth citing. Then cite them as blog posts. My point is that a LaTeX PDF can launder epistemic status. An unreviewed argument starts to look like established research merely because it adopts the visual grammar of a paper.

> Then cite them as blog posts

My point is it's still useful to have a somewhat authoritative place to cite (high quality) blog post level content. arXiv has formatting requirements and doesn't go down like random personal sites.

> a LaTeX PDF can launder epistemic status

True to a certain extent, although something people are aware of and they can judge the content themselves (hopefully).

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#35

Post by tokai »

This is exactly the play book that messed up scientific communication last time. Journals and research societies run by researchers and their institutions was spun off, sold, and made independent which in turn made it possible for a few publishers to gobble up everything.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#36

Post by tokai »

m-hodges wrote: post #24

I always struggle to figure out what role arXiv should play in my information diet. On the one hand I support Open Access research. On the other hand, peer review is vital, and a substantial quantity of “papers” on arXiv are just blog posts in a LaTeX trench coat.

Actually arXiv is frustrating from an open access angel. It is very much possible to put up documents without open licensing so the content is not always fulfilling the open access definition.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#37

Post by gspr »

m-hodges wrote: post #24

I always struggle to figure out what role arXiv should play in my information diet. On the one hand I support Open Access research. On the other hand, peer review is vital, and a substantial quantity of “papers” on arXiv are just blog posts in a LaTeX trench coat.

One growing role, especially in mathematics, is that of a host for "overlay journals": https://www.insmi.cnrs.fr/en/cnrsinfo/epijournaux-en-mathema...

I really like the idea. In short: arXiv, HAL and similar sites host the papers without any peer review (short of perhaps stopping crank spam) or access control. They're freely available to anyone. Authors then submit arXiv IDs (or similar) to the reviewers of "overlay journals", which then review and accept or not. The overlay journal accepts a paper by just adding it to its list of accepted arXiv identifiers, and that's that.

This ensures accessibility for all, keeps peer review, yet takes a lot of the practical hurdles away from actually running a journal. A journal can now just be a group of people who give thumbs up or down to arXiv identifiers, and if that group's conclusion start having weight in the community then it's become an important journal. Maybe they give away their listings for free, maybe they charge to read the reviews – it's really up to them what the business model (if any) will be.

It's really nice.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#38

Post by SiempreViernes »

modeless wrote: post #29
m-hodges wrote: post #24

I always struggle to figure out what role arXiv should play in my information diet. On the one hand I support Open Access research. On the other hand, peer review is vital, and a substantial quantity of “papers” on arXiv are just blog posts in a LaTeX trench coat.

Do people browse arxiv or monitor new posts like reddit or something? I only visit when I encounter a link to it or when I search for a specific paper.

Yeah, it is not too uncommon that people visit the new listings (or subscribe to the email version) to (try to) keep track of what is going on in your field.

Supposing of course your field roughly matches one of the categories.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#39

Post by augment_me »

m-hodges wrote: post #24

I always struggle to figure out what role arXiv should play in my information diet. On the one hand I support Open Access research. On the other hand, peer review is vital, and a substantial quantity of “papers” on arXiv are just blog posts in a LaTeX trench coat.

Peer review WAS vital for a long time. Maybe the world looks different now, maybe LLMs can find value in things better than humans. When you make an assumption it's good to think about why you do so, in this case it seems to be for historical reasons.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#40

Post by gspr »

TomasBM wrote: post #9

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 can even combine arXiv and peer review very neatly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48744030
Post reply on HN