Is Arxiv Any Good? | Investigating the Quality of Academic Archive

[J77]

I just searched arxiv for particular terms and had a look at some of the 'papers'.

Shocking stuff in there, eg. a few pages of well known, simple analysis on some model.

This doesn't constitute a paper. I thought you had to have recommendations to put your stuff up there - but what does this recommendation entail?

Is it worth having such an archive?

Particularly when most researchers have journal availability through their institute.

I see some good people on there, but also some things which looked like they've been knocked together overnight - and the whole presentation is sometimes very unprofessional - underlining of section titles etc.

Am I ranting now...

 

[Astronuc]

ArXiv does have some good papers, but there are papers there that certainly wouldn't make it into refereed journals. One just has to be careful.

 

[ZapperZ]

Here's the thing about arxiv that a lot of people either don't know, or don't realize.

Most professionals in this field do look at Arxiv. It is VERY useful in getting the latest information on who's doing what. I look at it every weekday morning -it's the first thing I do. However, I tend to look at my very specific area, and focuses only one groups or people that I'm familiar with. There are just way too many things appearing each day that there's no way I could look at every single paper even in my research area. So I only tend to focus on those work and groups that I'm am familiar with, especially if they're doing something similar.

What this means is that I tend to pay either zero, or very little attention, to unrecognized persons or groups. I just don't use Arxiv to "learn" stuff, but rather to get information on recent progress on the field from the people who I know are working at the forefront of that field. Based on my conversation with others who do use Arxiv, this attitude is very common. We just don't have the time to explore ideas coming from unfamiliar sources.

On the other hand, when I read Nature, Science, PRL, etc... I DO pay attention to every single paper that appears in my subject area, even when it comes from unfamiliar names/groups. The fact that such a paper made it into such peer-reviewed journals means that it has some merit, whether it turns out to be right or wrong later on. So even someone who isn't a big or familiar name in a particular field, if his/her paper made it into such peer-reviewed journals, I would pay as much attention to it as anything another well-known name would publish.

So this is the irony in having an "open" journal that has no peer-review, as mentioned in another thread. If the original intent of an author is to get name recognition, then he/she will probably be surprised that such work didn't get any attention in such a journal. I would certainly make a good guess that most of who would use such a journal would only pay attention to "brand name" papers, which would have gotten published in a peer-reviewed journal in the first place. So an open journal that is supposed to give publicity to obscure work would not get the publicity it want from the people who are actually working in that field. Whereas an obscure source publishing in peer-reviewed journal would garner more attention.

Zz.