The arXiv of the future will not look like the arXiv

AI-generated keywords: arXiv preprint repository technology collaboration data sharing

AI-generated Key Points

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the key points are generated using the paper metadata rather than the full article.

  • The arXiv was founded in 1991 and is now the most popular global preprint repository.
  • It allows researchers to share their work before formal peer review.
  • Advancements in technology have simplified document creation and distribution, contributing to its success.
  • A culture of collaboration and data sharing within the research community has also played a role in its popularity.
  • Despite its historical significance, the arXiv has seen minimal evolution since its inception.
  • A recent study by Alberto Pepe, Matteo Cantiello, and Josh Nicholson explores strengths and weaknesses of the arXiv and proposes potential enhancements using new technologies.
  • The authors suggest that a modernized version of the arXiv may differ significantly from its current form.
  • They seek feedback from readers on shaping the future of this important platform for scholarly exchange.
  • This highlights the importance of continuous innovation in scientific publishing to keep up with changing research practices and technological advancements.
Also access our AI generated: Comprehensive summary, Lay summary, Blog-like article; or ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant.

Authors: Alberto Pepe, Matteo Cantiello, Josh Nicholson

The authors of this document welcome public comments and ideas from its readers, at the online version of this article (https://www.authorea.com/173764)

Abstract: The arXiv is the most popular preprint repository in the world. Since its inception in 1991, the arXiv has allowed researchers to freely share publication-ready articles prior to formal peer review. The growth and the popularity of the arXiv emerged as a result of new technologies that made document creation and dissemination easy, and cultural practices where collaboration and data sharing were dominant. The arXiv represents a unique place in the history of research communication and the Web itself, however it has arguably changed very little since its creation. Here we look at the strengths and weaknesses of arXiv in an effort to identify what possible improvements can be made based on new technologies not previously available. Based on this, we argue that a modern arXiv might in fact not look at all like the arXiv of today.

Submitted to arXiv on 20 Sep. 2017

Ask questions about this paper to our AI assistant

You can also chat with multiple papers at once here.

The license of the paper does not allow us to build upon its content and the AI assistant only knows about the paper metadata rather than the full article.

AI assistant instructions?

Results of the summarizing process for the arXiv paper: 1709.07020v1

This paper's license doesn't allow us to build upon its content and the summarizing process is here made with the paper's metadata rather than the article.

The arXiv was founded in 1991 and has since become the most popular global preprint repository. It allows researchers to share their work before formal peer review. This success can be attributed to advancements in technology that have simplified document creation and distribution, as well as a culture of collaboration and data sharing within the research community. Despite its historical significance in revolutionizing research communication on the Web, the arXiv has seen minimal evolution since its inception. In a recent study by Alberto Pepe, Matteo Cantiello, and Josh Nicholson, they explore the strengths and weaknesses of the arXiv and propose potential enhancements leveraging new technologies. The authors argue that a modernized version of the arXiv may deviate significantly from its current form. They invite feedback and suggestions from readers on how to shape the future of this essential platform for scholarly exchange. This analysis sheds light on the need for continuous innovation in scientific publishing to adapt to evolving research practices and technological capabilities.
Created on 04 May. 2025

Assess the quality of the AI-generated content by voting

Score: 0

Why do we need votes?

Votes are used to determine whether we need to re-run our summarizing tools. If the count reaches -10, our tools can be restarted.

Similar papers summarized with our AI tools

Navigate through even more similar papers through a

tree representation

Look for similar papers (in beta version)

By clicking on the button above, our algorithm will scan all papers in our database to find the closest based on the contents of the full papers and not just on metadata. Please note that it only works for papers that we have generated summaries for and you can rerun it from time to time to get a more accurate result while our database grows.

Disclaimer: The AI-based summarization tool and virtual assistant provided on this website may not always provide accurate and complete summaries or responses. We encourage you to carefully review and evaluate the generated content to ensure its quality and relevance to your needs.