Inside arXiv - the Most Transformative Platform in All of Science (wired.com) 13
Paul Ginsparg, a physics professor at Cornell University, created arXiv nearly 35 years ago as a digital repository where researchers could share their findings before peer review. Today, the platform hosts more than 2.6 million papers, receives 20,000 new submissions monthly, and serves 5 million active users, Wired writes in a profile of the platform.
"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!" Ginsparg quotes from The Godfather, reflecting his inability to fully hand over the platform despite numerous attempts. If arXiv stopped functioning, scientists worldwide would face immediate disruption. "Everybody in math and physics uses it," says Scott Aaronson, a computer scientist at the University of Texas at Austin. "I scan it every night."
ArXiv revolutionized academic publishing, previously dominated by for-profit giants like Elsevier and Springer, by allowing instant and free access to research. Many significant discoveries, including the "transformers" paper that launched the modern AI boom, first appeared on the platform. Initially a collection of shell scripts on Ginsparg's NeXT machine in 1991, arXiv followed him from Los Alamos National Laboratory to Cornell, where it found an institutional home despite administrative challenges. Recent funding from the Simons Foundation has enabled a hiring spree and long-needed technical updates.
"Just when I thought I was out, they pull me back in!" Ginsparg quotes from The Godfather, reflecting his inability to fully hand over the platform despite numerous attempts. If arXiv stopped functioning, scientists worldwide would face immediate disruption. "Everybody in math and physics uses it," says Scott Aaronson, a computer scientist at the University of Texas at Austin. "I scan it every night."
ArXiv revolutionized academic publishing, previously dominated by for-profit giants like Elsevier and Springer, by allowing instant and free access to research. Many significant discoveries, including the "transformers" paper that launched the modern AI boom, first appeared on the platform. Initially a collection of shell scripts on Ginsparg's NeXT machine in 1991, arXiv followed him from Los Alamos National Laboratory to Cornell, where it found an institutional home despite administrative challenges. Recent funding from the Simons Foundation has enabled a hiring spree and long-needed technical updates.
What they said the web would be (Score:5, Insightful)
Good for him. It seems that a) objectivity, b) basic utility, and c) lack of the drive to monetize has some value after all.
Lack of Objectivity and Problematic Monopoly (Score:5, Interesting)
It seems that a) objectivity, b) basic utility, and c) lack of the drive to monetize has some value after all.
Yes....but recently arXiv has taken actions that cannot be argued to be objective at all. It banned Jorge Hirsch [science.org] a theoretical physicist from posting for 6-months because it claimed that he posted "inflammatory" papers.
These were papers that criticized claims of the discovery of room temperature superconductivity in high pressure metal hydrides. If you actually read the papers - which many of us even outside the field did because of the controversial ban - what you read was a clear, well-constructed scientific argument raising objective problems and concerns with the published data. The only way that the papers could said to be inflamatory is that they raised objective concerns, grounded in clear scientific arguments about other published papers...but this is something that is a key part of the scientific process: you _have_ to allow objective criticism of results because nobody is above making a mistake.
As it turned out there is now clear evidence that the results were not only wrong but that at least some of the data were fabricated leading to paper retractions and the dismissal of one of the key authors. [nature.com] So not only was arXiv wrong in principle to silence the voice of someone raising objective concerns with the results is was also objectively wrong to do so (although nobody knew that for certain at the time). In essence arXiv became an obstacle to science correcting itself rather than a mechanism that helps it do so.
There is no doubt that arXiv has been incredibly useful and was very innovative - although claiming it is the most transformative platform ever for science is utter nonsence since the web, which arXiv uses and which was invented at CERN, has clearly been far more transformative and not just for science. However, like Google's "don't be evil" motto - what starts as a great thing can often grow to the point where significant problems start to appear and sadly we may be starting to see that with arXiv if incidents like this are repeated.
Re: (Score:2)
arXiv isn't really special. It's just a preprint server - a server where people can post their papers for review before they undergo formal peer review and then publication.
It's just it's one of the more popular ones around so people post their preprint (and often final draft) papers on there, and once it's published, many others find the draft papers on arXiv to avoid paying for the journal to get a copy of the paper.
But in the end, it's still a preprint server. It's just a popular one where people from al
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A velvet-roped archive where truth waits behind a paywall, and progress pays rent—that is the alternative to arXiv. Yes, it is messy—built on idealism, duct tape, and volunteer resolve. But that mess is freedom. That mess is science in motion. Criticizing arXiv for imperfect moderation is like accusing a public library of censorship for declining to archive manifestos scrawled in crayon and invective—then demanding they be shelved next to The Feynman Lectures on Physics. It is not censors
Pause for Thought (Score:2)
A velvet-roped archive where truth waits behind a paywall, and progress pays rent—that is the alternative to arXiv.
That's not really true anymore - many journals are now open access and many institutes have deals that allow for free submission of papers by faculty making their work freely available to all if it passes peer review.
arXiv's moderation is imperfect, but rooted in transparent, field-specific standards....The ban targeted tone, not dissent.
There is no physics standard that Hirsh's papers failed to meet and the tone of the papers was exactly consistent with that of many other papers that arXiv happily accepts: it raised problems with previously published papers based on solid scientific reasoning. arXiv's moderation may not be i
One question: (Score:2)
How do you pronounce it?
Re:One question: (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
How do you pronounce it?
From Wikipedia [wikipedia.org], "arXiv (pronounced as "archive"—the X represents the Greek letter chi )".
Re: One question: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
How do you pronounce it?
The "X" in arXive is the greek letter Chi, pronounced with a hard "k". As Paul Ginsparg explained in interviews (and as noted in the Wired article, if you haven't read it yet) he originally considered calling it “archive,” but the domain was taken. So, he and his wife stylized it as arXiv, with "X" standing in for the Greek Chi, keeping it symmetrical and clever.
arXiv history (Score:2)
So, funding is now from the Simons Foundation, after being donated from Cornell's library and then the Computing and Information Science division. That's good that they now have the funding to hire software engineers and buy cloud resources. It's also interesting that the original code was in Perl but recently was rewritte in Python.