3 ms·
Of course there's some sour grapes in Nature's article, as arxiv.org has had the best exposure it's likely to get in years. The more that publish there, the few
by hilbert42 3y ago
Of course there's some sour grapes in Nature's article, as arxiv.org has had the best exposure it's likely to get in years. The more that publish there, the fewer who publish behind firewalls, etc. For starters, Nature's reprints are hellishly expensive.
- pbmonster 3y ago> arxiv.org has had the best exposure it's likely to get in years. The more that publish there, the fewer who publish behind firewalls We're talking about condensed matter physics here, arxiv needs zero exposure in this field. It is extremely common to publish on arxiv first and only then begin the process of submitting the same manuscript to be published (and peer reviewed) in a journal. And while there are still some authors that skip over publishing pre-prints at all, there's no serious arxiv competitor if you do decide to publish pre-prints. It is a de-facto monopoly in this field.
- hilbert42 3y agoTrue, but it's given the site more exposure in the general sense, it's now quoted by outlets that probably hadn't heard of it before this 'excitement'. (That can only help in the long run, one day Elbakyan mightn't need to do what she does.)
- jacquesm 3y agoAnd Nature is still trying to whitewash its own reputation for publishing a very high visibility paper on superconduction that they had to retract.
- hilbert42 3y agoRight, thanks, I forgot about that.
- pasttense01 3y agoWhat paper was that?
- jacquesm 3y agohttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05294-9 https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-022-05294-9