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

Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

blog.arxiv.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 250 posts

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#121

Post by elashri »

pj_mukh wrote: post #110
Sharlin wrote: post #5

So what they no longer accept is preprints (or rejects…) It’s of course a pretty big deal given that arXiv is all about preprints. And an accepted journal paper presumably cannot be submitted to arXiv anyway unless it’s an open journal.

On a Sidenote: I’d a love a list of CLOSED journals and conferences to avoid like the plague.

I don't think being closed vs open is the problem because most of the open access journals will ask for thousands of dollars from authors as publication fees. Which is getting paid to them by public funding. The open access model is actually now a lucrative model for the publishers. And they still don't pay authors or reviewers.

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#122

Post by dang »

thomascountz wrote: post #2

The HN submission title is incorrect. > Before being considered for submission to arXiv’s CS category, review articles and position papers must now be accepted at a journal or a conference and complete successful peer review. Edit: original title was "arXiv No Longer Accepts Computer Science Position or Review Papers Due to LLMs"

We've reverted it now.

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#123

Post by tempay »

jvanderbot wrote: post #45
ants_everywhere wrote: post #34

I'm not sure this is the right way to handle it (I don't know what is) but arXiv.org has suffered from poor quality self-promotion papers in CS for a long time now. Years before llms.

How precisely does it "suffer" though? It's basically a way to disseminate results but carries no journalistic prestige in itself. It's a fun place to look now and then for new results, but just reading the "front page" of a category has always been a Caveat Emptor situation.

This isn’t the case in some other fields.

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#124

Post by renewiltord »

pj_mukh wrote: post #110
Sharlin wrote: post #5

So what they no longer accept is preprints (or rejects…) It’s of course a pretty big deal given that arXiv is all about preprints. And an accepted journal paper presumably cannot be submitted to arXiv anyway unless it’s an open journal.

On a Sidenote: I’d a love a list of CLOSED journals and conferences to avoid like the plague.

Might as well ask about a list of spam email addresses.

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#125

Post by nickpsecurity »

DalasNoin wrote: post #10

it's clearly not sutainable to have the main website hosting CS articles not having any reviews or restrictions. (Except for the initial invite system) There were 26k submission in october: https://arxiv.org/stats/monthly_submissions Asking for a small amount of money would probably help. Issue with requiring peer reviewed journals or conferences is the severe lag, takes a long time and part of the advantage of arxiv…

I'll add the amount should be enough to cover at least a cursory review. A full review would be better. I just don't want to price out small players.

The papers could also be categorized as unreviewed, quick check, fully reviewed, or fully reproduced. They could pay for this to be done or verified. Then, we have a reputational problem to deal with on the reviewer side.

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#126

Post by fn-mote »

hermannj314 wrote: post #91
amelius wrote: post #8

Maybe it's time for a reputation system. E.g. every author publishes a public PGP key along with their work. Not sure about the details but this is about CS, so I'm sure they will figure something out.

I didn't agree with this idea, but then I looked at how much HN karma you have and now I think that maybe this is a good idea.

I would be much happer if you explained your _reasons_ for disagreeing or your _reasons_ for agreeing.

I don't think publishing a PGP key with your work does anything. There's no problem identifying the author of the work. The problem is identifying _untrustworthy_ authors. Especially in the face of many other participants in the system claiming the work is trusted.

As I understand it, the current system (in some fields) is essentially to set up a bunch of sockpuppet accounts to cite the main account and publish (useless) derivative works using the ideas from the main account. Someone attempting to use existing reasearch for it's intended purpose has no idea that the whole method is garbage / flawed / not reproducible.

If you can only trust what you, yourself verify, then the publications aren't nearly as useful and it is hard to "stand on the shoulders of giants" to make progress.

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#127

Post by hackernewds »

cyanydeez wrote: post #49
Sharlin wrote: post #5

So what they no longer accept is preprints (or rejects…) It’s of course a pretty big deal given that arXiv is all about preprints. And an accepted journal paper presumably cannot be submitted to arXiv anyway unless it’s an open journal.

Isnt arxiv also a likely LLM traing ground?

why train LLMs on preprint inaccurate findings?

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#129

Post by Ekaros »

uniqueuid wrote: post #79
amelius wrote: post #8

Maybe it's time for a reputation system. E.g. every author publishes a public PGP key along with their work. Not sure about the details but this is about CS, so I'm sure they will figure something out.

I got that suggestion recently talking to a colleague from a prestigious university. Her suggestion was simple: Kick out all non-ivy league and most international researchers. Then you have a working reputation system. Make of that what you will ...

Maybe there should be some type of strike rules. Say 3 bad articles from any institution and they get 10 year ban. Whatever their prestige or monetary value is. You let people under your name to release bad articles you are out for a while.

Treat everyone equally. After 10 years of only quality you get chance to get back. Before that though luck.

Re: Updated practice for review articles and position papers in ArXiv CS category

#130

Post by aoki »

ivape wrote: post #112
thomascountz wrote: post #2

The HN submission title is incorrect. > Before being considered for submission to arXiv’s CS category, review articles and position papers must now be accepted at a journal or a conference and complete successful peer review. Edit: original title was "arXiv No Longer Accepts Computer Science Position or Review Papers Due to LLMs"

I don’t know about this. From a pure entertainment standpoint, we may be denying ourselves a world of hilarity. LLMs + “You know Peter, I’m something of a research myself” delusions. I’d pay for this so long as people are very serious about the delusion.

That’s viXra
Post reply on HN