I think it's a great source for good information for specifics, but must know how to find the good papers and read them.
ArXiv's Next Chapter
101–107 of 107 posts
Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter
#102Earlier 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
Have you ever tried publishing a paper to an IEEE Section 8 conference? The page limits are ruthless. TELFOR 2026 has a 4 - 8 pages maximum.
Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter
#103I have always liked arXiv's articles on information science and library science. I hope they continue publishing quality research.
Any examples or greatest hits you would care to share?
I rather like the idea of Universal Knowledge Graphs because it relates to Universal Libraries, a concept which I am interested in. There is some material like this in arXiv
A Universal Question-Answering Platform for Knowledge Graphs
https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.00595
Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter
#104Earlier 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
In CS, unlike in many other fields, the best work comes out as conference papers, not journals, and they do have strict page limits. Most arxiv papers I read become conference papers, not journal papers.
Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter
#105Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
But this defeats the point of having open access and usually a DOI points to a journal. Why have a journal that reviews journal articles?
Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter
#106Should charge AI for training on top of it or get them to donate. A small amount can fund them easily.
Papers submitted to arXiv under its most permissive license should always be free , as in beer, speech, freedom. For researchers that contribute to it, that is the intention for a reason. It is to serve public and corporate good without restriction. This isn't me siding with AI companies by the way; it's a slippery slope argument.
The papers can make it free, they can just build a convenient search/retrieval API layer so Open AI and Anthropic don't pay 1-2 engineers a year at 1-2m to crawl and index that info for training.
The AI services have an option then to pay for this service, support a open service, or write their own crawler. I think if every open AI request didn't just do a web search but a more targeted arXiv search the results would be better.