A Reboot of the Legendary Physics Site ArXiv Could Shape Open Science

174 点作者 tonybeltramelli大约 9 年前

14 条评论

Aardwolf大约 9 年前

I currently really like the site as-is. Useful links to useful PDFs :) The article says it's a physics site, but I use it more for Mathematics and Computer Science.The HTML is small and loads fast and automatically works on mobile because it's just simple HTML.I hope the reboot won't mean huge bloated HTML+JS, and then a "mobile" version that has less features than what it has right now.P.S. the wired article talks about arxiv.org but doesn't have a single clickable link that goes to it??!!

评论 #11682934 未加载

评论 #11683350 未加载

charles_dickens大约 9 年前

Interesting to see their approach and the reasons why they are not building more features on top of ArXiv. Although comments on papers might be a dangerous area to venture into there are definitely places on the web where the ability to annotate and comment papers is helping science move forward. A good example is the Polymath project and Terry Tao's blog. Tao's recent solution to the Erdos discrepancy problem,an 80-year-old number theory problem, was actually triggered by a comment on his blog. Another example is www.fermatslibrary.com. Although the papers in the platform are more historical/foundational, they were able to get consistently good/constructive comments that help people understand papers better.

评论 #11681982 未加载

评论 #11682068 未加载

评论 #11682539 未加载

评论 #11682250 未加载

评论 #11685225 未加载

jessriedel大约 9 年前

One argument for conservatism: if physicists want a commenting system, why hasn't SciRate taken off?: <a href="https://scirate.com/" rel="nofollow">https://scirate.com/</a> The interface is clean, it has a lot of nice features, etc. It's gotten some traction in quantum info (my field), but the comments are rarely used. You can chalk this up to network effects (chicken-and-egg), which direct arXiv hosting could solve, but that problem can probably be eliminated by taking the minimal step of allowing the authors to link to the SciRate page from the arXiv page.No, I think the major feature about having the arXiv host comments directly is that it would force physicists to engage with folks who comment on their paper, because otherwise there would be unanswered criticism attached ("stapled") directly to their public-facing papers. Maybe that's what we want, but that's a huge step and there are a lot of ways for it to go badly.Here is a mockup that Paul Gisparg made for author-curated links on arXiv article pages. See the "Author suggestions" column on the right: <a href="http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~ginsparg/arxiv/1212.3061-mockup.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.cs.cornell.edu/~ginsparg/arxiv/1212.3061-mockup.h...</a> Allowing links to places like SciRate plausible solves most of the chicken-or-egg problem by allowing the author to designate "the" place for public discussion without picking a particular site to win or lose, or bundling release of a paper with forced public discussion.Shameless plug: folks here may be interested in my blog post about the future of academic papers and how the arXiv influences that: <a href="http://blog.jessriedel.com/2015/04/16/beyond-papers-gitwikxiv/" rel="nofollow">http://blog.jessriedel.com/2015/04/16/beyond-papers-gitwikxi...</a> There was good discussion on HN last year when it was posted: <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9415985" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9415985</a>

评论 #11682964 未加载

thomasahle大约 9 年前

I hope they take inspiration from the Arxiv Sanity Preserver: <a href="http://www.arxiv-sanity.com/" rel="nofollow">http://www.arxiv-sanity.com/</a>Also, ArXiv has a lot more than physics. Here's a map over all the papers: <a href="http://paperscape.org/" rel="nofollow">http://paperscape.org/</a>

评论 #11685506 未加载

评论 #11682138 未加载

nemoniac大约 9 年前

So arxiv served about 105000 different articles last year. I'm curious how much it cost and how that compares with what the big publishing houses tell us that should cost for their version of "open" publishing.

评论 #11684731 未加载

评论 #11682050 未加载

drole大约 9 年前

I find that these discussions of "to comment and like" or "not to comment and like" always misses the mark. Both sides of the discussion have solid arguments and I find it hard to imagine the discussion ever resolving itself to anything thereby keeping a status quo noone is really satisfied with.The problem is that most peoples frame of reference when talking about comments and "likes" is the facebook, reddit or [insert some publisher] model. That is all fine and dandy as a starting point, but let's not forget that all of those models are specifically engineered to keep people posting and liking as much as possible rather than focusing on like and comment quality. There is no reason, or at least i don't see it, why a different model focusing on like and comment quality could not be engineered. Furthermore, if such a model could be engineered well enough, I don't see why a comment and like section of arxiv could not contribute to furthering science as a whole. With that in mind a much more fruitful and positive discussion could be had about "how do we create a comment and like section where everyones interests are protected?" rather than the old back and forth discussion of easing barrier of entry vs quality.As others have noted much better starting points for the above discussion could be the stack-overflow model or something similar.

conjectures大约 9 年前

If this happens, there's a lot to be learned from Stack Exchange on how to do this well. The stats.stackexchange.com site is actually pretty high quality IMHO.Arxiv could use some of that reputation & moderation structure to regulate content. Cranks and time-wasters could be sidelined. It would certainly work much better than a typical newspaper comments section.It would work by establishing expectations of how much substance should be in a response to a paper. Then getting the community to pitch in on the quality of responses. You still get echo-chamber effects with this, but the quality filter is generally worth it.

评论 #11682647 未加载

westurner大约 9 年前

I've written up a few ideas about PDFs, edges, and reproducibility (in particular); with the Hashtags #LinkedReproducibility (and #MetaResearch)<a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23LinkedReproducibility" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/search?q=%23LinkedReproducibility</a><a href="https://twitter.com/search?q=%23MetaResearch" rel="nofollow">https://twitter.com/search?q=%23MetaResearch</a>- schema.org/MedicalTrialDesign enumerations could/should be extended to all of science (and then added to all of these PDFs without structured edge types like e.g. {intendedToReproduce, seemsToReproduce} (which then have specific ensuing discussions))- <a href="http://health-lifesci.schema.org/MedicalTrialDesign" rel="nofollow">http://health-lifesci.schema.org/MedicalTrialDesign</a>- there should be a way to evaluate controls in a structured, blinded, meta-analytic way- PDF is pretty, but does not support RDFa (because this is a graph)... notes here: <a href="https://wrdrd.com/docs/consulting/data-science#linked-reproducibility" rel="nofollow">https://wrdrd.com/docs/consulting/data-science#linked-reprod...</a>(edit) please feel free to implement any of these ideas (e.g. CC0)

评论 #11687338 未加载

joelthelion大约 9 年前

I just hope they don't wreck ArXiv in the process.

hyperion2010大约 9 年前

Aggregation and curation should remain separate. Perhaps the most useful thing would be for arxiv (or some other entity) to collect links from known curatorion sources to aid in the evaluation of papers.

PepeGomez大约 9 年前

Weird, but the article seems to be paywalled.

评论 #11682853 未加载

wodenokoto大约 9 年前

I never browse arxiv, but access it a lot through other services.I kind of like that model. Have the site being good at what it is best at, and help other services provide further services, such as search (google scholar) or stricter moderation and commenting and discussion.