Misunderstanding ArXiv

Jan 30 2012 Published by under scholarly communication, STS

The physics, astro, CS, math and related fields e-print server, ArXiv, is often misunderstood and misrepresented. Specifically, it's often represented as a place anyone can send any article in any state.

Anyone: users must be endorsed by another user. Endorsers are active submitters in the same area. This could be a fairly low bar, but it is there.

Any article: articles can be rejected or reclassified. Articles are expected to be journal quality. There are moderators to make these calls.

Any state: articles are supposed to be done. Read this interesting discussion on AstroBetter. Even if the rules don't say it, the norms in one of the subject areas might.

2 responses so far

  • Bashir says:

    Interesting, did not know this. I was vaguely considering using ArXiv for some of my work, though it's really not common in my field.

  • rknop says:

    In my field, most of the articles I read are peer reviewed and accepted by a "real" journal. It's just that the arXiv preprint comes out first... and in any event, my institution can't afford subscriptions. Indeed, given that the peer review is done by other astronomers without pay, and that the self-typesetting I see on arXiv is perfectly readable, it's not clear to me why my field pays journal publishers anything other than what it takes to manage the administration of peer review.