5 ms·

To give you a counterpoint, I've read plenty of computer science and mathematics papers where someone cited an arXiv paper by an obscure or unknown researcher.

To give you a counterpoint, I've read plenty of computer science and mathematics papers where someone cited an arXiv paper by an obscure or unknown researcher. I've even seen blog posts and email correspondence cited. In fact, in one of my own papers I cited an unpublished manuscript which you can't even find on the internet - you have to personally contact the author, who hasn't touched the thing in the last 25 years. For all intents and purposes, this manuscript - while valuable - only exists in the tribal folklore of the research community. But it's still cited and most active people in the field probably have a personal copy of it on their hard drive.

eindiran 8y ago
I think the difference is that arXiv papers don't have the same perceptions of low prestige attached as a random blog or a 4chan thread does. The issue isn't that the work is (yet) unpublished or that its obscure: its that it is from outside academia or traditionally prestigious sources.
- romwell 8y ago
  >academia or traditionally prestigious sources. You can't really put ArXiV and "traditionally prestigious sources" in the same sentence. Any crackpot can (and does) post on ArXiV. The reason why I'd be more comfortable citing a paper on ArXiV than a random web page (as a mathematician): 1. ArXiV is the archive for papers. You put something there, it's not going away. You can't even remove your own paper once you make it public there[1]. It's a reliable place I can refer people to. Personal websites? Well, my own very reliable academic web page has been removed by sysadmins without notice after graduation because "we don't maintain accounts". 2. Unrelated content. ArXiV won't have it - unlike, say, the 4chan thread in question. Do I really want to explain to people that I wasn't citing getting "14 * 14! derps out of the way"?. Not to mention ads, memes and NSFW content - which is also there[2][3] ---------- The other reasons are less important, but are still valid: 3. Presentation. Something on the ArXiV probably is formatted and structured like a readable paper; there are baseline expectations. Reading someone's scratchwork is borderline painful, and a proof on a webpage is usually just that. Compare [3] to a rewrite[4] - which one is easier to understand at a glance? 4. Reputation. This is different from "traditional prestige". The reputation of ArXiV is that most of the people who do serious work put it there. Most of the people produce nonsense (possibly including yours truly) also put it there, but the probability of any work having been done by someone who is willing to put effort into it goes down dramatically if the work is not on ArXiV. 5. Signaling. Since it's so easy to post there, any work not ArXiV is signaling "I don't care about my work being available to other people in the field". Why one read something that the author doesn't want them to? If they did, they'd put it on the ArXiV. 6. Attribution. A result on ArXiV makes it easy for me to attribute the result to someone. A thread on 4chan? Do I attribute it to everyone who participated? A single anonymous author? ---------- In short: people give credit to blackboard scribbles and napkin proofs that came out of discussions at conferences, but you won't see "4th beer coaster, such-and-such conference banquet, 2018" as something that people cite. A proof on 4chan is somewhere in the same category. ---------- The disclaimer here is that this applies mostly to new results in mathematics. Old results are not necessarily available online, and often we don't have a choice. Practices in other fields might be different. --------- [1] https://arxiv.org/help/withdraw https://arxiv.org/help/withdraw [2]https://warosu.org/sci/thread/S3751105#p3751197 https://warosu.org/sci/thread/S3751105#p3751197 [3]http://4watch.org/superstring/ http://4watch.org/superstring/ [4]https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MTUwMTUxMjExNDk4NTk5NjY5OTkBMDMxNDgwMTA5ODA5OTYyNzcyNDQBdlNFMnM3eTVCUUFKATAuMQEBdjI&authuser=0 https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MTUwMTUx...
  - Nomentatus 8y ago
    It's up to professors. I've had very important work taken by professors and published by them from my websites without attribution - even my own old professors! They think theft is fine if you aren't a fellow pirate, apparently. Arxiv is used by fellow pirates, so it's off limits, on this view.
    - romwell 8y ago
      Sad to hear that. What kind of work was that?
    - zmw 8y ago
      That sounds mighty weird, and honestly the statement has certain characteritics that trigger my crackpot alarm (don’t take it personally)... If what you say is true, it’s not like you don’t have recourse — you can write to the publication’s editorial board, or report to your department or institution’s academic disciplinary body (of course, that’s after you have contacted whomever you’re in dispute with; it’s okay, and I’ve had people cold emailing me about my preprint, asking me to mention their only somewhat related and by no means appropriated work...) Also, if you produced whatever result when you were working for a professor, they can publish it under their name (it’s nice to at least have you on the author list, of course), you don’t revoke their right just by publishing it on your own website. Anyway, whining on HN is the about least useful thing you can do.
      - Nomentatus 8y ago
        This is common stuff, and good luck on prompt action! No, I wasn't working for a prof - but note that you yourself just accept that work including ideas can be published by a prof without attribution to the discoverer! That tells us all where the academic mindset is. My noting is your whining, I gather. One can't tarry on life's path to upbraid all the assholes in the world, and legal redress is well out of reach of most of us. One can note it to warn others, and move on.
carbocation 8y ago
I have a little personal write-up that is cited in the academic medical literature. Post: http://james.pirruccello.us/index.php?title=Gamma_gap http://james.pirruccello.us/index.php?title=Gamma_gap Paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4668045/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4668045/
setr 8y ago
I vaguely remember reading a paper on three-coloring a graph, where the gadget was cited as coming from a children’s puzzles book
andrioni 8y ago
It's not entirely uncommon in mathematics to see citations to "personal communication with [insert name of other mathematician here]".

eindiran 8y ago

I think the difference is that arXiv papers don't have the same perceptions of low prestige attached as a random blog or a 4chan thread does. The issue isn't that the work is (yet) unpublished or that its obscure: its that it is from outside academia or traditionally prestigious sources.

romwell 8y ago
>academia or traditionally prestigious sources. You can't really put ArXiV and "traditionally prestigious sources" in the same sentence. Any crackpot can (and does) post on ArXiV. The reason why I'd be more comfortable citing a paper on ArXiV than a random web page (as a mathematician): 1. ArXiV is the archive for papers. You put something there, it's not going away. You can't even remove your own paper once you make it public there[1]. It's a reliable place I can refer people to. Personal websites? Well, my own very reliable academic web page has been removed by sysadmins without notice after graduation because "we don't maintain accounts". 2. Unrelated content. ArXiV won't have it - unlike, say, the 4chan thread in question. Do I really want to explain to people that I wasn't citing getting "14 * 14! derps out of the way"?. Not to mention ads, memes and NSFW content - which is also there[2][3] ---------- The other reasons are less important, but are still valid: 3. Presentation. Something on the ArXiV probably is formatted and structured like a readable paper; there are baseline expectations. Reading someone's scratchwork is borderline painful, and a proof on a webpage is usually just that. Compare [3] to a rewrite[4] - which one is easier to understand at a glance? 4. Reputation. This is different from "traditional prestige". The reputation of ArXiV is that most of the people who do serious work put it there. Most of the people produce nonsense (possibly including yours truly) also put it there, but the probability of any work having been done by someone who is willing to put effort into it goes down dramatically if the work is not on ArXiV. 5. Signaling. Since it's so easy to post there, any work not ArXiV is signaling "I don't care about my work being available to other people in the field". Why one read something that the author doesn't want them to? If they did, they'd put it on the ArXiV. 6. Attribution. A result on ArXiV makes it easy for me to attribute the result to someone. A thread on 4chan? Do I attribute it to everyone who participated? A single anonymous author? ---------- In short: people give credit to blackboard scribbles and napkin proofs that came out of discussions at conferences, but you won't see "4th beer coaster, such-and-such conference banquet, 2018" as something that people cite. A proof on 4chan is somewhere in the same category. ---------- The disclaimer here is that this applies mostly to new results in mathematics. Old results are not necessarily available online, and often we don't have a choice. Practices in other fields might be different. --------- [1] https://arxiv.org/help/withdraw https://arxiv.org/help/withdraw [2]https://warosu.org/sci/thread/S3751105#p3751197 https://warosu.org/sci/thread/S3751105#p3751197 [3]http://4watch.org/superstring/ http://4watch.org/superstring/ [4]https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MTUwMTUxMjExNDk4NTk5NjY5OTkBMDMxNDgwMTA5ODA5OTYyNzcyNDQBdlNFMnM3eTVCUUFKATAuMQEBdjI&authuser=0 https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=forums&srcid=MTUwMTUx...
- Nomentatus 8y ago
  It's up to professors. I've had very important work taken by professors and published by them from my websites without attribution - even my own old professors! They think theft is fine if you aren't a fellow pirate, apparently. Arxiv is used by fellow pirates, so it's off limits, on this view.
  - romwell 8y ago
    Sad to hear that. What kind of work was that?
  - zmw 8y ago
    That sounds mighty weird, and honestly the statement has certain characteritics that trigger my crackpot alarm (don’t take it personally)... If what you say is true, it’s not like you don’t have recourse — you can write to the publication’s editorial board, or report to your department or institution’s academic disciplinary body (of course, that’s after you have contacted whomever you’re in dispute with; it’s okay, and I’ve had people cold emailing me about my preprint, asking me to mention their only somewhat related and by no means appropriated work...) Also, if you produced whatever result when you were working for a professor, they can publish it under their name (it’s nice to at least have you on the author list, of course), you don’t revoke their right just by publishing it on your own website. Anyway, whining on HN is the about least useful thing you can do.
    - Nomentatus 8y ago
      This is common stuff, and good luck on prompt action! No, I wasn't working for a prof - but note that you yourself just accept that work including ideas can be published by a prof without attribution to the discoverer! That tells us all where the academic mindset is. My noting is your whining, I gather. One can't tarry on life's path to upbraid all the assholes in the world, and legal redress is well out of reach of most of us. One can note it to warn others, and move on.

carbocation 8y ago

I have a little personal write-up that is cited in the academic medical literature. Post: http://james.pirruccello.us/index.php?title=Gamma_gap http://james.pirruccello.us/index.php?title=Gamma_gap Paper: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4668045/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4668045/

setr 8y ago

I vaguely remember reading a paper on three-coloring a graph, where the gadget was cited as coming from a children’s puzzles book

andrioni 8y ago

It's not entirely uncommon in mathematics to see citations to "personal communication with [insert name of other mathematician here]".