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.
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.
This. In my experience, you have to replace peer review with reputation for preprints. That's highly imperfect, and it tends to lead to dismissing of good but work by less well-known researchers as "not peer reviewed", while well-known researchers (or researchers at well-known institutions) basically get a fast track to citations.
Despite the imperfections, I found arXiv indispensable for my research. In particular, mathematics has a slow peer review cycle (it's hard to read and understand, and many referees require that they fully understand a paper to accept it, which imo is a little flawed, but that's the culture). I had several papers that were under review for more than a year (single journal, only one round of revisions), and arXiv was my only showcase. Both works ended up very highly cited, but publication delays would have been an even bigger problem if arXiv wasn't there.
This reminded me of the fact that one colleague of mine even updates the arXiv version if any errors are spotted and says himself that this makes the arXiv version better than the journal version.
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.
It depends on the kind of people. Most normal people don't do that, it's not a reddit-like platform after all.
But most researchers and grad students (like me) often subscribe to daily mailing list of the papers dropping that day from their particular field. Having a cursory read at the paper titles and then opening the papers further relevant to you is a morning ritual for many.
https://www.alphaxiv.org/ is a nice place to browse, search for, and read ArXiv papers which have optional AI summaries and chat. If you like one paper, you can get a list of similar papers.
It is a recommendation system for new papers that come out each day. If you train it a bit by specifying what you like and don't like you'll get a pretty reliable feed.
I use the RSS feeds to watch for papers mentioning terms I'm curious about, do a casual skim for anything interesting and maybe end up finding a paper per month or two that are useful to read more carefully. Lots of chaff for sure, but if you have some core interests it's quite useful.
Not all the time, but I certainly do to keep up with latest results. Usually, these days I go through SciRate, where the quantum computing community is very active in voting up good paper [1].
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" and get a weekly email listing 30-40 papers.
Yeah, it is not too uncommon that people visit the new listings (or subscribe to the email version) to (try to) keep track of what is going on in your field.
Supposing of course your field roughly matches one of the categories.
Have you personally reviewed for big conferences or submitted and received reviews? It's a very noisy process that does toss out the lowest effort clueless stuff, but doesn't discriminate all that well between "meh" and "interesting", junior reviewers (the bulk) want proof of blood, sweat and tears. They want novel model modules and algo tweaks and complain about novelty that it's just A plus B, missing the point... They surely don't catch wrong results or incorrect claims because the catastrophic problems that invalidate papers are often in the implementation, not the nice math equations that motivate it.
In other words, Arxiv is what you use when you want to inform yourself on new research, conferences are for furthering your career by getting closer to your PhD graduation, expand your CV etc. And then to network and mingle with researchers in person and try to get hired.
I really like the idea. In short: arXiv, HAL and similar sites host the papers without any peer review (short of perhaps stopping crank spam) or access control. They're freely available to anyone. Authors then submit arXiv IDs (or similar) to the reviewers of "overlay journals", which then review and accept or not. The overlay journal accepts a paper by just adding it to its list of accepted arXiv identifiers, and that's that.
This ensures accessibility for all, keeps peer review, yet takes a lot of the practical hurdles away from actually running a journal. A journal can now just be a group of people who give thumbs up or down to arXiv identifiers, and if that group's conclusion start having weight in the community then it's become an important journal. Maybe they give away their listings for free, maybe they charge to read the reviews – it's really up to them what the business model (if any) will be.
I’ve been arguing for this for a long time, glad to see this sort of thing start.
Papers “being in” a journal hasn’t made sense for a long time, but curation is valuable as is staking reputation on something.
People I was with called some of this “badges”, there is no reason why a paper cannot be reviewed by a set of people who say “this is new and innovative stuff in the field and highly important if true, but we’re not making claims about the stats” and a different set able to say “the stats here is spot on but we don’t know how relevant it is in biology” and another to say “we can rerun the code and get the same analysis results out, but we don’t know if the analysis is doing anything useful”. Right now we have journals making some combination of claims, and authors have to pick a single journal.
Once you view journals as a list of papers, the exclusivity seems weird. Once you see that journals are then a set of identifiers added to a paper, or rather statements about a paper, there’s lots of interesting ways you can imagine more useful things than current publishing.
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.
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.
The classic paper format is just ergonomically what many of us are good at handling effectively as readers. For example in ML typically they all have an abstract, a teaser figure with a caption, Fig. 2 with a method overview/architecture (boxes and arrows). An intro starting with the motivation and the problem with prior work, their key idea, their experimental evidence, then a dense restatement of the contributions as bullet points. Then related work overview, then the method description in detail, then the experiments, dataset descriptions, protocols, metrics, then the results and their interpretations, then the conclusion, i.e. what they conclude from the results.
Its fairly rigid and newcomers often complain that it's too repetitive but if you read such papers for years, you learn to very quickly navigate such a paper that adheres to these conventions and you quickly see if it's something you care about right now or not. Blog posts don't have the same formal structure and it makes the quick skimming and assessment much harder.
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).
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.
Actually arXiv is frustrating from an open access angel. It is very much possible to put up documents without open licensing so the content is not always fulfilling the open access definition.
Peer review WAS vital for a long time. Maybe the world looks different now, maybe LLMs can find value in things better than humans. When you make an assumption it's good to think about why you do so, in this case it seems to be for historical reasons.
likewise, taking a wrecking ball to systems refined over centuries should come with some burden of proof for the positive claim that a tool can replace an institution. most times this has happened before, we've had to strengthen credentialing requirements to stop people from dying
The burden of proof is on peer review not the other way around. Peer review is a fairly modern invention post WWII. Prior to that “peer review” looked very different.
i'm saying all positive claims need to be justified, not that priors are exempt. there is one claim with a vast body of evidence supporting it, and a competing claim that must meet the same standard. the world is not so magically different now that we can't look at software engineering and computer science the same way we look at real (credentialist, regulated) science and engineering disciplines. really all i was implying is "peer review WAS vital" is jumping the gun
There’s a lot of stuff on Researchgate. And with the evolution of European grants, there are a few publicly-available repositories, like hal.science (funded by the French government and the default repository for public research in France, I think you have to be with some kind of research institution so it’s not quite as open as arxiv but there are plenty of good articles there).
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.
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
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).
When that’s the case, the preprints would be just as short. We don’t really like unnecessary pain so we write short manuscripts from the beginning, if we plan to submit in such a journal. Usually, the longer versions get published somewhere else anyway.
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
I thought google pay Mozilla so they don't set the default search engine to something else (they same way Google pay Apple for Safari) and so Google continues to dominate and makes money of ads.
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.
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.
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...
>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.
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.
Overlay journals can also have a short editorial description of the paper, basically an executive summary of what it says and why it's interesting or noteworthy.
Thought-provoking closing paragraph from the linked Cornel Chronicle article about the transition:
“It’s now difficult to prepare for the world three months from now if the median LLM-produced computer science paper is better than that produced by the median grad student.”
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...
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.
This is exactly the play book that messed up scientific communication last time. Journals and research societies run by researchers and their institutions was spun off, sold, and made independent which in turn made it possible for a few publishers to gobble up everything.
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.
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.
This. In my experience, you have to replace peer review with reputation for preprints. That's highly imperfect, and it tends to lead to dismissing of good but work by less well-known researchers as "not peer reviewed", while well-known researchers (or researchers at well-known institutions) basically get a fast track to citations.
Despite the imperfections, I found arXiv indispensable for my research. In particular, mathematics has a slow peer review cycle (it's hard to read and understand, and many referees require that they fully understand a paper to accept it, which imo is a little flawed, but that's the culture). I had several papers that were under review for more than a year (single journal, only one round of revisions), and arXiv was my only showcase. Both works ended up very highly cited, but publication delays would have been an even bigger problem if arXiv wasn't there.
they also keep the papers as a pre-edited, free version of the peer reviewed equivalent
This reminded me of the fact that one colleague of mine even updates the arXiv version if any errors are spotted and says himself that this makes the arXiv version better than the journal version.
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.
It depends on the kind of people. Most normal people don't do that, it's not a reddit-like platform after all.
But most researchers and grad students (like me) often subscribe to daily mailing list of the papers dropping that day from their particular field. Having a cursory read at the paper titles and then opening the papers further relevant to you is a morning ritual for many.
Was for me as a physics grad student in 1995!
https://www.alphaxiv.org/ is a nice place to browse, search for, and read ArXiv papers which have optional AI summaries and chat. If you like one paper, you can get a list of similar papers.
To view a specific paper, just take original link and change "arxiv" --> "alphaxiv". For example: https://www.alphaxiv.org/abs/1706.03762
I suggest Scholar Inbox.
https://www.scholar-inbox.com/landing
It is a recommendation system for new papers that come out each day. If you train it a bit by specifying what you like and don't like you'll get a pretty reliable feed.
I use the RSS feeds to watch for papers mentioning terms I'm curious about, do a casual skim for anything interesting and maybe end up finding a paper per month or two that are useful to read more carefully. Lots of chaff for sure, but if you have some core interests it's quite useful.
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
Not all the time, but I certainly do to keep up with latest results. Usually, these days I go through SciRate, where the quantum computing community is very active in voting up good paper [1].
[1] https://scirate.com/arxiv/quant-ph
Yes, people do that. Karpathy made a utility to monitor it better years ago: https://github.com/karpathy/arxiv-sanity-preserver
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" and get a weekly email listing 30-40 papers.
Yeah, it is not too uncommon that people visit the new listings (or subscribe to the email version) to (try to) keep track of what is going on in your field.
Supposing of course your field roughly matches one of the categories.
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.
I get google scholar alerts according to authors.
I’m RSS-subscribed to a few sections relevant to my research.
RSSFeed yes
Have you personally reviewed for big conferences or submitted and received reviews? It's a very noisy process that does toss out the lowest effort clueless stuff, but doesn't discriminate all that well between "meh" and "interesting", junior reviewers (the bulk) want proof of blood, sweat and tears. They want novel model modules and algo tweaks and complain about novelty that it's just A plus B, missing the point... They surely don't catch wrong results or incorrect claims because the catastrophic problems that invalidate papers are often in the implementation, not the nice math equations that motivate it.
In other words, Arxiv is what you use when you want to inform yourself on new research, conferences are for furthering your career by getting closer to your PhD graduation, expand your CV etc. And then to network and mingle with researchers in person and try to get hired.
One growing role, especially in mathematics, is that of a host for "overlay journals": https://www.insmi.cnrs.fr/en/cnrsinfo/epijournaux-en-mathema...
I really like the idea. In short: arXiv, HAL and similar sites host the papers without any peer review (short of perhaps stopping crank spam) or access control. They're freely available to anyone. Authors then submit arXiv IDs (or similar) to the reviewers of "overlay journals", which then review and accept or not. The overlay journal accepts a paper by just adding it to its list of accepted arXiv identifiers, and that's that.
This ensures accessibility for all, keeps peer review, yet takes a lot of the practical hurdles away from actually running a journal. A journal can now just be a group of people who give thumbs up or down to arXiv identifiers, and if that group's conclusion start having weight in the community then it's become an important journal. Maybe they give away their listings for free, maybe they charge to read the reviews – it's really up to them what the business model (if any) will be.
It's really nice.
I’ve been arguing for this for a long time, glad to see this sort of thing start.
Papers “being in” a journal hasn’t made sense for a long time, but curation is valuable as is staking reputation on something.
People I was with called some of this “badges”, there is no reason why a paper cannot be reviewed by a set of people who say “this is new and innovative stuff in the field and highly important if true, but we’re not making claims about the stats” and a different set able to say “the stats here is spot on but we don’t know how relevant it is in biology” and another to say “we can rerun the code and get the same analysis results out, but we don’t know if the analysis is doing anything useful”. Right now we have journals making some combination of claims, and authors have to pick a single journal.
Once you view journals as a list of papers, the exclusivity seems weird. Once you see that journals are then a set of identifiers added to a paper, or rather statements about a paper, there’s lots of interesting ways you can imagine more useful things than current publishing.
I think the DOI system provides a stable identifier for a paper that is not specific to arXiv?
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.
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.
The classic paper format is just ergonomically what many of us are good at handling effectively as readers. For example in ML typically they all have an abstract, a teaser figure with a caption, Fig. 2 with a method overview/architecture (boxes and arrows). An intro starting with the motivation and the problem with prior work, their key idea, their experimental evidence, then a dense restatement of the contributions as bullet points. Then related work overview, then the method description in detail, then the experiments, dataset descriptions, protocols, metrics, then the results and their interpretations, then the conclusion, i.e. what they conclude from the results.
Its fairly rigid and newcomers often complain that it's too repetitive but if you read such papers for years, you learn to very quickly navigate such a paper that adheres to these conventions and you quickly see if it's something you care about right now or not. Blog posts don't have the same formal structure and it makes the quick skimming and assessment much harder.
> 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.
If you judge things based on their formatting, that's on you
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.
The bibliography is more important, imo, than the peer review. I get the most use of arxiv surfing references and citations.
Unless you are in research I would not bother; you are trying to drink from a firehose. Let other people do the curating for you.
"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.
arXiv enables peer review!
arXiv users are the peers doing the review.
"Peer review" has existed for centuries before journals created their own bad for-profit version.
Actually arXiv is frustrating from an open access angel. It is very much possible to put up documents without open licensing so the content is not always fulfilling the open access definition.
Peer review WAS vital for a long time. Maybe the world looks different now, maybe LLMs can find value in things better than humans. When you make an assumption it's good to think about why you do so, in this case it seems to be for historical reasons.
likewise, taking a wrecking ball to systems refined over centuries should come with some burden of proof for the positive claim that a tool can replace an institution. most times this has happened before, we've had to strengthen credentialing requirements to stop people from dying
The burden of proof is on peer review not the other way around. Peer review is a fairly modern invention post WWII. Prior to that “peer review” looked very different.
i'm saying all positive claims need to be justified, not that priors are exempt. there is one claim with a vast body of evidence supporting it, and a competing claim that must meet the same standard. the world is not so magically different now that we can't look at software engineering and computer science the same way we look at real (credentialist, regulated) science and engineering disciplines. really all i was implying is "peer review WAS vital" is jumping the gun
I'm always grateful to arXiv. It allows non-scientists like me to access high-quality papers anytime. Thank you, always
There’s a lot of stuff on Researchgate. And with the evolution of European grants, there are a few publicly-available repositories, like hal.science (funded by the French government and the default repository for public research in France, I think you have to be with some kind of research institution so it’s not quite as open as arxiv but there are plenty of good articles there).
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.
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
> I don't know which field you're talking about, but in general, math and cs journals do not have page limits.
A lot of physics journals do. Anything ending in "Letters" (e.g. Applied Physics Letters, Physical Review Letters".
Science has a word limit per article.
Nature doesn't have a hard limit, but if it exceeds 6-8 pages, it needs to be exceptional.
cryptography, for example, which is essentially math + cs together
Which journal?
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.
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).
When that’s the case, the preprints would be just as short. We don’t really like unnecessary pain so we write short manuscripts from the beginning, if we plan to submit in such a journal. Usually, the longer versions get published somewhere else anyway.
I am thankful for arXiv only made minor adjustments to its UI over the years, and I hope arXiv keep it that way.
I really miss the crimson red. New one makes me think they are mourning someone.
Related: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47450478
“ArXiv declares independence from Cornell” (science.org)
811 points | 3 months ago | 291 comments
Should charge AI for training on top of it or get them to donate. A small amount can fund them easily.
That would be a trap. It's healthier for a non-profit to have many small funders than a few large ones.
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
I thought google pay Mozilla so they don't set the default search engine to something else (they same way Google pay Apple for Safari) and so Google continues to dominate and makes money of ads.
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.
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.
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.
> It is to serve public and corporate good without restriction.
Sometimes those two are in conflict, such that it will not be possible to satisfy both simultaneously.
as if they would pay.... they would pirate the contents as they already did
They’ve never paid for any content?
I have always liked arXiv's articles on information science and library science. I hope they continue publishing quality research.
Any examples or greatest hits you would care to share?
The big challenge will maybe be governance more than infrastructure : staying community driven while becoming an independent nonprofit is not trivial
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.
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/
> 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!
>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.
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.
You can even combine arXiv and peer review very neatly: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48744030
Overlay journals can also have a short editorial description of the paper, basically an executive summary of what it says and why it's interesting or noteworthy.
Examples:
https://discreteanalysisjournal.com/
https://www.advancesincombinatorics.com/
I like this - thanks for sharing!
Thought-provoking closing paragraph from the linked Cornel Chronicle article about the transition:
“It’s now difficult to prepare for the world three months from now if the median LLM-produced computer science paper is better than that produced by the median grad student.”
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2026/06/digital-research-re...
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...
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.
Yeah yeah yeah, are you buying arXiv at IPO?
This is exactly the play book that messed up scientific communication last time. Journals and research societies run by researchers and their institutions was spun off, sold, and made independent which in turn made it possible for a few publishers to gobble up everything.