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

51–60 of 107 posts

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#51

Post by prepend »

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.

It’s a useful tool. But its “value” is about the same as a github repo with your pdf.

It doesn’t need much funding or staff and not quite sure why they’re going through all this rigmarole and independence. I almost think they’d be better off like Apache where there ade very few employees.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#52

Post by prepend »

rw2 wrote: post #3

Should charge AI for training on top of it or get them to donate. A small amount can fund them easily.

Part of the promise of open access and open science is that the information is free and open to all. Including robots.

I submit to open things because I want my material to be openly available. If I wanted restrictions, I would submit to gated journals.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#53

Post by rubidium »

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.

I did when I was in academia. Would open each day and check what new papers were in my field. It was fun, and I learned a ton.

I kept it up out of habit for a year after grad school. Then moved on.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#54

Post by emadb »

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.

I built a bluesky bot if someone is interested in having a live feed of the articles.

You can find it here: https://bsky.app/profile/arxiv-daily-bot.bsky.social

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#55

Post by zzleeper »

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.

At least in economics it can easily be 1-5 years until you go from draft to journal. In the meantime, you want a way for others to easily cite your paper, to make different revisions available, for you to post it in a way that's stable (people's websites change all the time, etc.)

Also, because most folks don't want to deal with paywalls, it's standard practice to put the last version of your draft before conditional acceptance on an online repository. It used to be SSRN for econ/finance, but they sold out to Elsevier, so now arxiv is increasingly being used.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#57

Post by Der_Einzige »

emil-lp wrote: post #28
honzaik wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

look at essentially any proceedings of any conference (in crypto we dont really do journals). see EUROCRYPT for example https://link.springer.com/book/10.1007/978-3-031-91098-2 in there, every paper will be cut down and referring to full version for proofs etc. which are typically on eprint.iacr.org

Well, yes, conference proceedings are usually page limited, but that's not a journal.

In AI, conferences are far more prestigious than journals.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#58

Post by colechristensen »

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 is vital"

I suggest knowing some people who have written works for peer review and done peer review themselves.

Some people outside academia give peer review quite the undeserved aura.

There's a lot of trash on ArXiv, how much of it is in your diet should depend on your ability to evaluate the quality of research.

Re: ArXiv's Next Chapter

#59

Post by m-hodges »

montebicyclelo wrote: post #33
m-hodges wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

> although something people are aware of and they can judge the content themselves

Based on how arXiv papers get boosted around on social media, I don't believe this to be the case.

Post reply on HN