arXiv or not arXiv?

Hi there,

I would like to start/continue the discussion about the scientific publications, (blind) reviews and preprints.
We have wrote two blogposts and a paper with @atabb defending the right to do pre-acceptance preprints and benefits of doing so.

Hands off arXiv!
What does it mean to publish your scientific paper in 2020?
ArXiving Before Submission Helps Everyone

However, there is another point of view that double blind is more important thing than arXiving, which should be prohibited, at least in a non-anonymous form (specifically addressed in our blogpost and paper). I disagree with that point of view, but respect people who support it.

I would post here the links to the relevant discussions and agruments from the both sides.

Pro-arXiv.:

Anti-arXiv:

The list above is obviously too short and I am going to update it.

What is your opinion on the topic? What is more important - double blind review, or ability to present your research work? Any comments are welcomed, as well as links to the discussions/papers online on the topic.

3 Likes

I’m very much pro arxiv. Just look at all those papers that show up on arxiv and get 100+ citations in a matter of weeks and months. This “acceleration of dissemination” makes computer science (especially machine learning and computer vision) more impactful than older fields where it takes students years to get their journal papers out.

arxiv does not level the playing field, but it makes the field move faster

1 Like

Now, as you touched the topic of field acceleration – what do you think about the requests that we need to slow down a bit in order to do more original and impactful research instead of incremental MPUs?