Hacker News Reader

Comment by dahfizz | Hacker News Reader

> I have a partial solution: researchers “publish” papers to arXiv or similar, then “submit” them to the journal, which conducts peer review. The “journal” is a list of links to papers that it has accepted or verified.

This made me curious about how arxiv operates. It seems that you require endorsement to become a registered author, and the submissions are moderated[1][2].

This already seems sufficient to keep out spam and clearly junk science. What is the value add of official(?) journals?

[1] https://arxiv.org/about

[2] https://arxiv.org/help/submit

View on HN

"Official" (aka well-known/have a high "Impact Factor") journals give you a stamp of approval that help you get recognised in your career, and in some fields are where your peers go to stay up to date on new potentially relevant research.

(Disclosure: I volunteer for https://plaudit.pub, a non-profit that aims to separate that from the publication process.)

Submissions are moderated, but depending on the field, anything reasonable-looking may be accepted. For example, there is more than one "proof" of the Riemann Hypothesis in the arXiv. But the moderation system certainly keeps out spam.

Edit: Here's a proof of the Riemann hypothesis submitted just last week: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.01890.pdf You can have a little fun exploring "proofs" of famous theorems on the arXiv over the years.

Where is that quote from?

https://jakeseliger.com/2020/05/24/a-simple-solution-to-peer...

Did you mean to reply to https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32832212 ?

No? Maybe I misinterpreted your comment. I was answering your question

> Where is that quote from?

by providing a link to the source of the quote.

Ironically, maybe the person to whom you first replied was actually intending to respond to the comment you just linked instead of making a top-level comment.

Not ironic, that is what I meant. I didn't realize they were two different people, my bad.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com