Live data from Hacker News

ArXiv's Next Chapter

blog.arxiv.org

71–80 of 107 posts

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#71
post #70
post #2

I'm always grateful to arXiv. It allows non-scientists like me to access high-quality papers anytime. Thank you, always

I am thankful for arXiv only made minor adjustments to its UI over the years, and I hope arXiv keep it that way.

I really miss the crimson red. New one makes me think they are mourning someone.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#72
post #37

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…

I think the DOI system provides a stable identifier for a paper that is not specific to arXiv?

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#73
post #41
post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I thought google pay Mozilla so they don't set the default search engine to something else (they same way Google pay Apple for Safari) and so Google continues to dominate and makes money of ads.

[dead]

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#74

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.

I suggest Scholar Inbox.

https://www.scholar-inbox.com/landing

It is a recommendation system for new papers that come out each day. If you train it a bit by specifying what you like and don't like you'll get a pretty reliable feed.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#75

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.

I get google scholar alerts according to authors.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#76
post #32

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.

they also keep the papers as a pre-edited, free version of the peer reviewed equivalent

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#77
post #2

I'm always grateful to arXiv. It allows non-scientists like me to access high-quality papers anytime. Thank you, always

There’s a lot of stuff on Researchgate. And with the evolution of European grants, there are a few publicly-available repositories, like hal.science (funded by the French government and the default repository for public research in France, I think you have to be with some kind of research institution so it’s not quite as open as arxiv but there are plenty of good articles there).

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#78
post #10
post #2

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.

When that’s the case, the preprints would be just as short. We don’t really like unnecessary pain so we write short manuscripts from the beginning, if we plan to submit in such a journal. Usually, the longer versions get published somewhere else anyway.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#79

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.

arXiv enables peer review!

arXiv users are the peers doing the review.

"Peer review" has existed for centuries before journals created their own bad for-profit version.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It depends on the kind of people. Most normal people don't do that, it's not a reddit-like platform after all. But most researchers and grad students (like me) often subscribe to daily mailing list of the papers dropping that day from their particular field. Having a cursory read at the paper titles and then opening the papers further relevant to you is a morning ritual for many.

Was for me as a physics grad student in 1995!
Post reply on HN