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

61–70 of 250 posts

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

#61

Post by nunez »

losvedir wrote: post #57
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.

Maybe arXiv could keep the free preprints but offer a service on top. Humans, experts in the field, would review submissions, and arXiv would curate and publish the high quality ones, and offer access to these via a subscription or fee per paper....

I'm guessing this is why they are mandating that submitted position or review papers get published in a journal first.

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

#62

Post by Sharlin »

jvanderbot wrote: post #19
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.

For position (opinion) or review (summarizing state of art and often laden with opinions on categories and future directions). LLMs would be happy to generate both these because they require zero technical contributions, working code, validated results, etc.

Right, good clarification.

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

#63

Post by tasuki »

iberator wrote: post #44

Simple solution: criminalize posting AI generated publications IF NOT DISCLOSED CLEARLY. Lets say 50000€ fine, or 1 year in prison. :)

Would you like to have to prove your comment wasn't written by an AI or would you rather go to prison?

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

#64

Post by JumpCrisscross »

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.

> but carries no journalistic prestige

Beyond hosting cost, there is some prestige to seeing an arXiv link versus rando blog post despite both having about the same hurdle to publishing.

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

#65

Post by nunez »

candiddevmike wrote: post #12
j45 wrote: post #4

Have the papers gotten that good or bad?

I've seen quite a few preprints posted on HN with clearly fantastical claims that only seem to reinforce or ride the coattails of the current hype cycle. It's no longer research, it's becoming "top of funnel thought leadership".

Resume Driven Development, Academia Edition

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

#66

Post by hoistbypetard »

exasperaited wrote: post #41

The Tragedy of the Commons, updated for LLMs. Part #975 in a continuing series. These things will ruin everything good, and that is before we even start talking about audio or video.

Spammers ruin everything. This gives the spammers a force multiplier.

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

#67

Post by raddan »

jfengel wrote: post #42
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 had been kinda hoping for a web-of-trust system to replace peer review. Anyone can endorse an article. You can decide which endorsers you trust, and do some network math to find what you think is reading. With hashes and signatures and all that rot. Not as gate-keepy as journals and not as anarchic as purely open publishing. Should be cheap, too.

The problem with an endorsement scheme is citation rings, ie groups of people who artificially inflate the perceived value of some line of work by citing each other. This is a problem even now, but it is kept in check by the fact that authors do not usually have any control over who reviews their paper. Indeed, in my area, reviews are double blind, and despite claims that “you can tell who wrote this anyway” research done by several chairs in our SIG suggests that this is very much not the case.

Fundamentally, we want research that offers something new (“what did we learn?”) and presents it in a way that at least plausibly has a chance of becoming generalizable knowledge. You call it gate-keeping, but I call it keeping published science high-quality.

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

#68

Post by raddan »

losvedir wrote: post #57
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.

Maybe arXiv could keep the free preprints but offer a service on top. Humans, experts in the field, would review submissions, and arXiv would curate and publish the high quality ones, and offer access to these via a subscription or fee per paper....

Of course we already have a system that does this: journals and conferences. They’re peer-reviewed venues for showing the world your work.

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

#69

Post by exasperaited »

hoistbypetard wrote: post #66
exasperaited wrote: post #41

The Tragedy of the Commons, updated for LLMs. Part #975 in a continuing series. These things will ruin everything good, and that is before we even start talking about audio or video.

Spammers ruin everything. This gives the spammers a force multiplier.

> This gives the spammers a force multiplier.

It is also turning people into spammers because it makes bluffers feel like experts.

ChatGPT is so revealing about a person's character.

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

#70

Post by kibwen »

exasperaited wrote: post #41

The Tragedy of the Commons, updated for LLMs. Part #975 in a continuing series. These things will ruin everything good, and that is before we even start talking about audio or video.

Part #975, but that's only because we overflowed the 64-bit counter. Again.
Post reply on HN