4 ms·
The tweet says "arxiv is a cancer". It's obviously reasonable evidence that some people don't like arxiv. You are splitting hairs.
by kawhah 3y ago
The tweet says "arxiv is a cancer". It's obviously reasonable evidence that some people don't like arxiv. You are splitting hairs.
- davidgerard 3y agoand the context really isn't "gatekeepers hate open access", is it.
- woadwarrior01 3y agoThe context is that the author of the tweet hates fast paced open research (which IMO is a net good for humanity) and makes up the strawman `"can't keep up" + "anything older than 6 months is irrelevant" in CS` quotes to justify that position. There's timeless beauty in CS, but there's also a lot more fertile ground for research in CS, given how young the field is compared to the older sciences.
- davidgerard 3y agocounterpoint: no she doesn't, that's weird nonsense. and I've offered at least as much evidence as you have.
- tokai 3y agoThe author of that tweet clearly has an issue with the arxiv being an open repository where everyone can upload anything. There is nothing about open access in the tweet. And arxiv is not same as the concept or movement of open access. Most articles on Arxiv doesn't even have a proper license to fulfill the definition of Open Access in the BOAI declaration. Further proof that the authors tweet is not about or against open access is that she publishes open access herself: https://jlm.ipipan.waw.pl/index.php/JLM/article/view/292 https://jlm.ipipan.waw.pl/index.php/JLM/article/view/292 https://nejlt.ep.liu.se/article/view/4017 https://nejlt.ep.liu.se/article/view/4017 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3498366.3505816 https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3498366.3505816
- plaguepilled 3y agoDoesn't change the point. Also doesn't refute the point.
- deleted 3y ago[deleted]
- Angostura 3y agoThe original suggested "Gatekeepers who hate open access." The example was actually a Gatekeeper who values peer review before publication.
- smohare 3y ago[dead]
- plaguepilled 3y agoArxiv is open access prepublication, and doesn't remove the need for peer review to get into actual journals. If you apply for a grant and you say "I was published on Arxiv" you are not getting that grant. Additionally, Arxiv won't kick you off their platform if you post a preprint there, and then you get published in Nature. In other words, the reason it does not change the point is that Arxiv does not weaken the publication process for the actual journals the preprint will be submitted to. You still need peer review to get published and you are still incentivised to do just that. You could argue 'preprints ARE publishing' but I'd need to be convinced of that point because I don't agree for the reasons stated above.