Slashdot Mirror
Free Online Scientific Repository Hits Milestone
ocean_soul writes "Last week the free and open access repository for scientific (mainly physics but also math, computer sciences...) papers arXiv got past 500,000 different papers, not counting older versions of the same article. Especially for physicists, it is the number-one resource for the latest scientific results. Most researchers publish their papers on arXiv before they are published in a 'normal' journal. A famous example is Grisha Perelman, who published his award-winning paper exclusively on arXiv."
Well, according to TFsite, "3 Oct 2008: arXiv passes half-million article milestone", so that would be 5 * 10^5.
No folly is more costly than the folly of intolerant idealism. - Winston Churchill
Condensed matter physics and high energy physics also have a large presence on Arxiv. As you say, it depends largely on which branch of physics you deal with.
Answers in Genesis has a creation 'science' journal here.
The summary misplaced a comma. The actual total is 500,000 not 50,000.
one thing to bear in mind is that it is not peer reviewed, *anybody* can stick *anything* there.
This is true. However, they do have a group of moderators which recategorizes what they think are "merely mediocre, speculative, or erroneous articles". See http://front.math.ucdavis.edu/ifaq#nonsense
Of course, this is not the same as peer-review, but at least it's something.
>that comma is in the wrong place
Right. The correct number is 500,000 (not "50,0000").
arxiv.org actually says 497,649 as of a moment ago).
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
In it he writes:
As an experiment, Greg Kuperberg looked at the publication status of the first 100 papers in theoretical high energy physics posted to the arXiv in December 1998. He found that 81 had appeared in journals, 11 were conference proceedings or invited lectures, and 2 were Ph.D. theses. "Thus at least 94 of the 100 have been blessed by some form of peer review," he concludes.
Peer review is great for some things, but just ask Galileo how 'peer review' worked for him. 7 years in a prison as a part of the inquisition. I do realize, that today scientific breakthroughs are treate
Just a note, Galileo's trial by the inquisition was not a problem of peer reviewing: it wasn't that he couldn't get his work published; it was what happened after it was published.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
it is not peer reviewed, *anybody* can stick *anything* there.
I think they've changed things a little bit over time. It does seem like anyone is able to register an account, which would allow them to start submitting papers. But looking at the help pages, I see this on an endorsement system: "Effective January 17, 2004, arXiv.org began requiring some users to be endorsed by another user before submitting their first paper to a category or subject class." They note that this isn't peer review, but it "will verify that arXiv contributors belong [to] the scientific community". They also moderate submissions, and the help page on this topic says: "arXiv reserves the right to reject or reclassify any submission." While also not real peer-review, it "helps to ensure that arXiv content is relevant to current research".
Perhaps some areas are better than others about self-moderating/reviewing submissions. My experience with the astro-ph archive, which I've read for many years, is that most of it is generally good material, often pre-prints of papers that will appear in peer-reviewed journals or conference proceedings. Not all of it is like that of course, but I think there's a lot more signal than noise in the astro-ph section at least. Just my opinion.
To clarify, arxiv is a document repository (you submit your papers there). If you want a scientific papers search engine, use citeseer.
Note that citeseer also indexes arxiv documents :)
At some level, hyperlinks (at least) are standard. They're called "references" and were the closest thing to a hyperlink before the intertubes were invented. Several free services (ADS is one: http://adsabs.harvard.edu/ have spiders that walk the literature and create genuine URL-style links between articles. ArXiV is advancing custom along that path, by making many journal articles available for linking to anyone free of charge.
Extended data sets are coming. Astrophysical Journal allows online publication of movies and data to support articles, and I imagine that ArXiV will one day too. (Though they don't have the server space to support many of the data sets that are written about in those PDFs).
Meanwhile, most^H^H^H^Hmany scientific authors are happy to give you their original data -- just write to them and ask for it!
It is NOT peer reviewed, but around half the papers eventually get accepted in a journal or a conference proceeding. It doesn't only contains articles, but also overviews, books and introductions.
Here's how it works (for me at least):
First you write a paper - this is the hard part. Then you can submit it to Arxiv - usually done at the same time as submission to a journal, though some choose to wait for any initial backlash/corrections before doing this. Arxiv normally publishes it the next working day with no peer review (8pm EST the night before) for all to see online. Meenwhile your journal is still looking for peer reviewers. No journal in physics can now ask to be the sole source for any article - all authors have to sign a contract often stating that no other commercial source will exist, but that the author can have a copy on his/her homepage (or other place) for free distribution, and on the preprint archive.
Double-blind journal review becomes single-blind when you publish on Arxiv - you can't see your reviewer's name but he can easily find yours. This way it's still possible for someone who gets your paper to screw you over if they don't like you, but then again you can appeal to the editors if you think this is happening. Since you don't know your reviewer, you can't exert any pressure on them (in theory) to accept your paper, so the review part keeps most of its integrity. Reviewers are also required to give detailed reasons for rejecting/accepting papers so you really have to justify your reasons not just "I like/dislike this guy".
In many fields, the blind part of peer review isn't all that blind. Often from the suggestions for citations for example you can get an idea of who your reviewer is. In small fields it's pretty hard not to know everyone in it anyway - especially since you're normally familiar with everyone else' work in your area, and because reviewers are chosen as experts in that area.