4 ms·

arXiv is not a peer reviewed journal.

• deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
• lorenzhs 10y ago
  That is correct, and the author did make their research available online (on researchgate and OSF). The arXiv simply isn't the right preprint server for this, as its range of subjects doesn't cover the author's: "Open access to 1,160,864 e-prints in Physics, Mathematics, Computer Science, Quantitative Biology, Quantitative Finance and Statistics". For all the hate that peer review gets on HN, it plays a significant role in science and it's important to have a quality screening for papers. Preprint servers and peer-reviewed conferences and journals work best in tandem. The way it works here is that when we submit something to a conference, we also submit a technical report to arXiv, which we update to incorporate the reviewers' feedback. The "complete" and preferred version is usually the one on arXiv (no length restriction, so you can actually explain and prove stuff). Conferences are much more than just publication venues, though: lots of collaborations start there, and interesting discussions can be had.
  • apathy 10y ago
    The entire replication chain is a statistics exercise. But whatever -- your point is sound, preprints should complement peer review. It's only Elsevuer and a few others that try to prevent this. I guess we can hope that fat old professors die off & younger academics decline to edit for journals that impede progress. It works great in physics.