Hacker News Reader

Comment by DalasNoin | Hacker News Reader

it's clearly not sutainable to have the main website hosting CS articles not having any reviews or restrictions. (Except for the initial invite system) There were 26k submission in october: https://arxiv.org/stats/monthly_submissions

Asking for a small amount of money would probably help. Issue with requiring peer reviewed journals or conferences is the severe lag, takes a long time and part of the advantage of arxiv was that you could have the paper instantly as a preprint. Also these conferences and journals are also receiving enormous quantities of submissions (29.000 for AAAI) so we are just pushing the problem.

View on HN

A small payment is probably better than what they are doing. But we must eventually solve the LLM issue, probably by punishing the people that use them instead of the entire public.

It’s not a money issue. People publish these papers to get jobs, into schools, visa’s and whatnot. Way more than $30 in value from being “published”.

I'll add the amount should be enough to cover at least a cursory review. A full review would be better. I just don't want to price out small players.

The papers could also be categorized as unreviewed, quick check, fully reviewed, or fully reproduced. They could pay for this to be done or verified. Then, we have a reputational problem to deal with on the reviewer side.

I don't know about CS, but in mathematics the vast majority of researchers would not have enough funding to pay for a good quality full review of their articles. The peer review system mostly runs on good will.

> I'll add the amount should be enough to cover at least a cursory review.

You might be vastly underestimating the cost of such a feature

I'm assuming it cost somewhere between no review and a thorough one. Past that, I assume nothing. Pay reviewers per review or per hour like other consultants. Groups like Arxiv would, for a smaller fee, verify the reviewer's credentials and that the review happened.

That's if anyone wants the publishing to be closer to thr scientific method. Arxiv themselves might not attempt all of that. We can still hope for volunteers to review papers in a field with little, peer review. I just don't think we can call most of that science anymore.

I like this idea. A small contribution would be a good filter. Looking at the stats it’s quite crazy. Didn’t know that we could access to this data. Thanks for sharing.

I think it worked well for metafilter: $1/1euro one-time charge to join. But that's probably worth it to spam Arxiv with junk.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com