ArXiv's Next Chapter

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.

▲

emil-lp 4 minutes ago | parent [-]

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

▲

honzaik 2 minutes ago | parent [-]

cryptography, for example, which is essentially math + cs together

	▲	emil-lp 2 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		Which journal?

▲

WalterGR an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

“ArXiv declares independence from Cornell” (science.org)

811 points | 3 months ago | 291 comments

▲

rw2 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

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

▲

jltsiren an hour ago | parent | next [-]

That would be a trap. It's healthier for a non-profit to have many small funders than a few large ones.

▲

nok22kon an hour ago | parent [-]

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

	▲	charcircuit 7 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		If Google didn't pay hundreds of millions, Microsoft would. If Google just wanted them to exist and didn't care about profiting off of the search traffic they wouldn't partner with Mozilla.

▲

nok22kon an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

as if they would pay.... they would pirate the contents as they already did

	▲	brookst 5 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		They’ve never paid for any content?

▲

TomasBM an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-]

ArXiv is a good complement to the modern peer review, IMO. As long as someone "vouches" for you, and you adhere to its minimal standards, you're able to post a paper. Other readers can decide whether the paper is worth their attention, and whether the presented ideas or results are valuable.

It's also good that it doesn't gatekeep with the paywalls that you can pretty much only afford by affiliating yourself with a toll-paying institution.

Obviously, there are plenty of flaws with this system:

1. If you're associated with a brand (e.g., Google, MIT) or have a recognizable co-author (e.g., Yann LeCun), you'll get attention and citations no matter what.

2. "Vouching" can also just mean accepting someone's email request without ever having met or known them.

3. It puts the effort on the readers to decide whether each paper is valuable, and particularly scientifically valuable, for which most readers will be unequipped.

4. "Minimal standards" can be gamed by AI-generated submissions.

I'd love to see a synthesis of arXiv, open-access publishing and artifact reviews, like the following:

- Have a number of reviewers on retainer, or design a reward system similar to bug bounties. The reward mechanism probably shouldn't be based on money or allow a winner-takes-all strategy.

- Have a number of badges with respect to the quality and value of the paper. For example: validated by peers (i.e., reviewed by at least 3 peers with minimum borderline accept consensus), valuable (i.e., reviewed by at least 5 peers with a valuable indicator), etc.

- Allow vouched comments on the platform, and moderate for self-promotion, toxicity, etc. Obviously a big ask.

- Improve the "vouching" system, or add badges like "vouched by X people" or "vouched by established scientist".

Hope their new organization will implement some of these improvements.

▲

Vinnl 23 minutes ago | parent | next [-]

I volunteered for a project [1] with roughly this philosophy. Traditional publishing currently serves three purposes:

- Organise peer feedback - Publish the work - Recognise good work, helping with both discovery and credit

That latter part especially is what allows publishers to charge the ridiculous markup that they do.

But with "modern" technology, feedback and publishing really doesn't require all that infrastructure - email and arXiv can easily be used to self-organise that. So we built a system of recognition that does not block publication, and can be used as a layer on top of arXiv and any other venue, allowing peers to vouch ("endorse") for a work.

I had even proposed and implemented an integration for arXiv Labs that got accepted, but then never merged. I should follow up on that...

[1] https://plaudit.pub/

	▲	TomasBM 14 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		> I had even proposed and implemented an integration for arXiv Labs that got accepted, but then never merged. I should follow up on that... You definitely should - looks like what I roughly had in mind. Thanks for sharing!

▲

GoblinSlayer 9 minutes ago | parent | prev [-]

>3. It puts the effort on the readers to decide whether each paper is valuable, and particularly scientifically valuable, for which most readers will be unequipped.

You say it as if replication crisis doesn't exist and publish or perish is not a thing.

	▲	TomasBM a minute ago \| parent [-]
		Actually, the replication crisis shows how difficult (or underinvested) the process of reviewing is. Removing this (often very basic) peer review doesn't somehow fix the problem. The solution lies in more thorough reviews and replication studies, not in everyone deciding for themselves.

▲

piokoch an hour ago | parent | prev [-]

That worries me a bit. ArXiv was and is great and so useful to humanity, giving access to otherwise closed knowledge, hold by publishers cartel, that I would not like to see it is turning into a "non-profit" of OpenAI kind...

	▲	tancop 6 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		openai had billionaire "donors" who understood the company was going to operate as a PBC with a positive return for them instead of a true nonprofit. the heel turn to unlimited for profit was only possible because of their unique structure and the fact they were already selling commercial products. arxiv is not selling anything so theres no financial incentive to take over.