The big challenge will maybe be governance more than infrastructure : staying community driven while becoming an independent nonprofit is not trivial
m-hodges 32 minutes ago [-]
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.
tim-kt 14 minutes ago [-]
If you know the authors of your specific area of research, arXiv is a nice way to read their new papers when they are (mostly) done but the submission to a journal is not finished yet.
modeless 25 minutes ago [-]
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.
jjgreen 17 minutes ago [-]
A bit too big and varied to browse, but you can get emails of all recent papers in your field(s) of interest with something like Scholars: https://app.scholars.io/newsletter I subscribe to "Functional Analysis", 30-40 a week.
montebicyclelo 27 minutes ago [-]
Well, some blog posts are worth citing.
m-hodges 21 minutes ago [-]
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.
montebicyclelo 6 minutes ago [-]
> 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).
jdw64 3 hours ago [-]
I'm always grateful to arXiv. It allows non-scientists like me to access high-quality papers anytime. Thank you, always
xdertz 1 hours ago [-]
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 39 minutes ago [-]
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 38 minutes ago [-]
cryptography, for example, which is essentially math + cs together
32 minutes ago [-]
emil-lp 37 minutes ago [-]
Which journal?
honzaik 34 minutes ago [-]
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
emil-lp 26 minutes ago [-]
Well, yes, conference proceedings are usually page limited, but that's not a journal.
seasox 31 minutes ago [-]
We usually do conferences in cryptography/security, and most of them have page limits: CCS, USENIX, NDSS, S&P, CRYPTO, EUROCRYPT all have page limits (some allow appendices, which reviewers are not obligated to read).
“ArXiv declares independence from Cornell” (science.org)
811 points | 3 months ago | 291 comments
rw2 2 hours ago [-]
Should charge AI for training on top of it or get them to donate. A small amount can fund them easily.
hodgehog11 34 minutes ago [-]
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.
jltsiren 2 hours ago [-]
That would be a trap. It's healthier for a non-profit to have many small funders than a few large ones.
nok22kon 2 hours ago [-]
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 42 minutes ago [-]
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 2 hours ago [-]
as if they would pay.... they would pirate the contents as they already did
brookst 41 minutes ago [-]
They’ve never paid for any content?
TomasBM 1 hours ago [-]
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 59 minutes ago [-]
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...
> 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 45 minutes ago [-]
>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 36 minutes ago [-]
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 2 hours ago [-]
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 41 minutes ago [-]
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.
Rendered at 08:49:55 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
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.
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).
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
“ArXiv declares independence from Cornell” (science.org)
811 points | 3 months ago | 291 comments
This isn't me siding with AI companies by the way; it's a slippery slope argument.
If Google just wanted them to exist and didn't care about profiting off of the search traffic they wouldn't partner with Mozilla.
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.
- 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/
You definitely should - looks like what I roughly had in mind.
Thanks for sharing!
You say it as if replication crisis doesn't exist and publish or perish is not a thing.
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.
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.