5 ms·
ArXiv's Next Chapter
- jdw64 3mo agoI'm always grateful to arXiv. It allows non-scientists like me to access high-quality papers anytime. Thank you, always
- xdertz 3mo agoIt 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.
- jdw64 3mo ago[dead]
- emil-lp 3mo agoI 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 3mo agocryptography, for example, which is essentially math + cs together
- emil-lp 3mo agoWhich journal?
- honzaik 3mo agolook 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 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 3mo agoWell, yes, conference proceedings are usually page limited, but that's not a journal.
- Der_Einzige 3mo agoIn AI, conferences are far more prestigious than journals.
- seasox 3mo agoWe 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).
- deleted 3mo ago[deleted]
- BeetleB 3mo ago> 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.
- maleldil 3mo agoACL conference papers usually cap the main body at 8 pages, with unlimited appendices. KDD has a hard limit of 9 pages plus 3 for references and appendices.
- rcbdev 3mo agoHave you ever tried publishing a paper to an IEEE Section 8 conference? The page limits are ruthless. TELFOR 2026 has a 4 - 8 pages maximum.
- haritha-j 3mo agoIn CS, unlike in many other fields, the best work comes out as conference papers, not journals, and they do have strict page limits. Most arxiv papers I read become conference papers, not journal papers.
- kergonath 3mo agoWhen 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.
- infinet 3mo agoI am thankful for arXiv only made minor adjustments to its UI over the years, and I hope arXiv keep it that way.
- estebarb 3mo agoI really miss the crimson red. New one makes me think they are mourning someone.
- kergonath 3mo agoThere’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).
- rw2 3mo agoShould charge AI for training on top of it or get them to donate. A small amount can fund them easily.
- nok22kon 3mo agoas if they would pay.... they would pirate the contents as they already did
- jltsiren 3mo agoThat would be a trap. It's healthier for a non-profit to have many small funders than a few large ones.
- nok22kon 3mo agoexactly, 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 3mo agoIf 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.
- khurs 3mo agoI 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.
- WalterGR 3mo agoRelated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47450478 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47450478 “ArXiv declares independence from Cornell” (science.org) 811 points | 3 months ago | 291 comments
- piokoch 3mo agoThat 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 3mo agoopenai 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.
- kaizenite 3mo agoYeah yeah yeah, are you buying arXiv at IPO?
- TomasBM 3mo agoArXiv 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 3mo agoI 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/ https://plaudit.pub/
- m-hodges 3mo agoI 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.
- poslathian 3mo agoThe bibliography is more important, imo, than the peer review. I get the most use of arxiv surfing references and citations.
- montebicyclelo 3mo agoWell, some blog posts are worth citing.
- m-hodges 3mo agoOf 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 3mo 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).
- m-hodges 3mo ago> 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.
- latentframe 3mo agoThe big challenge will maybe be governance more than infrastructure : staying community driven while becoming an independent nonprofit is not trivial
- tokai 3mo agoThis 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.
- stefantalpalaru 3mo ago[dead]
- Varcolacus 3mo ago[flagged]
- NishanStepak 3mo agoI have always liked arXiv's articles on information science and library science. I hope they continue publishing quality research.
- themikejr 3mo agoAny examples or greatest hits you would care to share?
- NishanStepak 3mo agoI rather like the idea of Universal Knowledge Graphs because it relates to Universal Libraries, a concept which I am interested in. There is some material like this in arXiv A Universal Question-Answering Platform for Knowledge Graphs https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.00595 https://arxiv.org/abs/2303.00595
- pbronez 3mo agoThought-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-repository-arxiv-start-new-chapter-nonprofit https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2026/06/digital-research-re...
- planetoftofu 3mo ago"Morrisett also said that arXiv needed to be more nimble when it came to hiring – and paying – staff than was possible under the Cornell umbrella." IOW, it's hard to hire the software engineers at the University payscale.
- mahirsaid 3mo agoI think it's a great source for good information for specifics, but must know how to find the good papers and read them.